Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status · Expiration of Contract Term (10 Days of Daily Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 510)
- Date2026/07/01 04:10
- Read 21
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment).”
Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-11 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The worker claimed that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular (continuous) employee, not a daily worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he was a regular employee rather than a daily worker, and that the employer had unilaterally and unfairly dismissed him. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the nature of the employment relationship and the cause of its termination based on daily work reports, wage statements, construction progress data, and the parties’ statements.
The Commission considered, in a comprehensive manner, the worker’s total number of working days, the method of calculating wages, and whether the period of work had been set in line with the construction schedule, in order to determine whether the employment relationship in this case had been terminated by unfair dismissal or by expiration of a fixed-term contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where no written employment contract was prepared, wages were paid based on a formula of “daily wage rate × actual number of working days,” and the total number of working days was only 10 days, the worker should be regarded as a regular (continuous) employee, or as a daily/fixed-term employee who worked for a fixed period, and accordingly whether there existed a “dismissal” that could be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the daily work reports and wage statements specified a basic daily wage rate, and that the monthly wage had been paid by multiplying the daily wage rate by the actual number of working days; that the total number of working days during the entire period of work in question was only 10 days; and that, judging from the construction progress data and statements, the worker appeared to have worked on the understanding that the employment period would run until the end of March 2026.
In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee and instead held that it was reasonable to evaluate the situation as one in which the worker had provided labor for a fixed period aligned with the construction schedule.
The Commission held that, contrary to the worker’s assertion, the termination in this case should be viewed as the expiration of a fixed-term employment relationship upon completion of the construction phase, rather than as an unfair dismissal based on a separate manifestation of intent to dismiss by the employer. It therefore found it difficult to regard the employer as having unfairly dismissed the worker.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, if the actual pattern of work is closer to that of a regular employee, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible to prove the continuity of work, exclusivity to the workplace, the employer’s direction and supervision, and the method of wage payment, even if there is no written employment contract. In particular, where the worker has worked at a construction site or project site only for a short period and has been paid wages based on “daily rate × number of working days,” the Labor Relations Commission may regard the case as an expiration of contract and refuse to grant a remedy for unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the worker should specifically整理 whether his or her work was repeated and continuous, and whether there was a practice of assignment to other sites.
When consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is advisable to systematically organize and submit materials that can substantiate the continuity of work and the nature of the employment as regular, such as daily work reports by date, records of wage transfers, records of clocking in and out, and records of site assignments.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, regardless of whether collective redundancies are at issue, if there is a practice of using daily or fixed-term workers in a manner that is in substance long-term and repetitive like regular employees, while failing to prepare written employment contracts, there is a high risk that such situations will develop into unfair dismissal disputes. As seen in this case, even in the absence of a written employment contract, the Labor Relations Commission will determine whether a termination is due to “expiration of contract term or dismissal” based on evidence such as the method of wage calculation, total number of working days, and construction progress/project period. Therefore, from the time of hiring, it is necessary to clearly set out in writing the contract period, job duties, number of working days, and working patterns.
Furthermore, where the same individual is repeatedly contracted with, or is in substance assigned to ordinary and continuous duties while being formally treated only as a daily or fixed-term worker, employers should be aware that, unless they reorganize their staffing operations and consider converting such workers to regular status in the long term, they may receive unfavorable decisions in future disputes in which experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& are involved.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The worker asserted that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular employee, not a daily worker. Although no written employment contract had been prepared between the parties, making it difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the employment relationship, in light of the facts that, according to the daily work reports and wage statements, the monthly wage was paid by multiplying the basic daily wage rate by the number of working days, and that the total number of working days during the period in question was only 10 days, it is difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee. In addition, considering the submitted construction progress data and statements, it appears that the worker worked for a fixed period up to around the end of March 2026. Taking all of these circumstances together, the employment relationship is to be regarded as having ended upon expiration of the contract term …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The worker asserted that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular employee, not a daily worker. Although no written employment contract had been prepared between the parties, making it difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the employment relationship, in light of the facts that, according to the daily work reports and wage statements, the monthly wage was paid by multiplying the basic daily wage rate by the number of working days, and that the total number of working days during the period in question was only 10 days, it is difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee. In addition, considering the submitted construction progress data and statements, it appears that the worker worked for a fixed period up to around the end of March 2026. Taking all of these circumstances together, the employment relationship is to be regarded as having ended upon expiration of the contract term … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Staff for Educational Support Staff)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Staff for Educational Support Staff)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment) in the “Employee Status · Expiration of Contract Term (10 Days of Daily Employment) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment).”
Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-11 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The worker claimed that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular (continuous) employee, not a daily worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he was a regular employee rather than a daily worker, and that the employer had unilaterally and unfairly dismissed him. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the nature of the employment relationship and the cause of its termination based on daily work reports, wage statements, construction progress data, and the parties’ statements.
The Commission considered, in a comprehensive manner, the worker’s total number of working days, the method of calculating wages, and whether the period of work had been set in line with the construction schedule, in order to determine whether the employment relationship in this case had been terminated by unfair dismissal or by expiration of a fixed-term contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where no written employment contract was prepared, wages were paid based on a formula of “daily wage rate × actual number of working days,” and the total number of working days was only 10 days, the worker should be regarded as a regular (continuous) employee, or as a daily/fixed-term employee who worked for a fixed period, and accordingly whether there existed a “dismissal” that could be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the daily work reports and wage statements specified a basic daily wage rate, and that the monthly wage had been paid by multiplying the daily wage rate by the actual number of working days; that the total number of working days during the entire period of work in question was only 10 days; and that, judging from the construction progress data and statements, the worker appeared to have worked on the understanding that the employment period would run until the end of March 2026.
In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee and instead held that it was reasonable to evaluate the situation as one in which the worker had provided labor for a fixed period aligned with the construction schedule.
The Commission held that, contrary to the worker’s assertion, the termination in this case should be viewed as the expiration of a fixed-term employment relationship upon completion of the construction phase, rather than as an unfair dismissal based on a separate manifestation of intent to dismiss by the employer. It therefore found it difficult to regard the employer as having unfairly dismissed the worker.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, if the actual pattern of work is closer to that of a regular employee, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible to prove the continuity of work, exclusivity to the workplace, the employer’s direction and supervision, and the method of wage payment, even if there is no written employment contract. In particular, where the worker has worked at a construction site or project site only for a short period and has been paid wages based on “daily rate × number of working days,” the Labor Relations Commission may regard the case as an expiration of contract and refuse to grant a remedy for unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the worker should specifically整理 whether his or her work was repeated and continuous, and whether there was a practice of assignment to other sites.
When consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is advisable to systematically organize and submit materials that can substantiate the continuity of work and the nature of the employment as regular, such as daily work reports by date, records of wage transfers, records of clocking in and out, and records of site assignments.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, regardless of whether collective redundancies are at issue, if there is a practice of using daily or fixed-term workers in a manner that is in substance long-term and repetitive like regular employees, while failing to prepare written employment contracts, there is a high risk that such situations will develop into unfair dismissal disputes. As seen in this case, even in the absence of a written employment contract, the Labor Relations Commission will determine whether a termination is due to “expiration of contract term or dismissal” based on evidence such as the method of wage calculation, total number of working days, and construction progress/project period. Therefore, from the time of hiring, it is necessary to clearly set out in writing the contract period, job duties, number of working days, and working patterns.
Furthermore, where the same individual is repeatedly contracted with, or is in substance assigned to ordinary and continuous duties while being formally treated only as a daily or fixed-term worker, employers should be aware that, unless they reorganize their staffing operations and consider converting such workers to regular status in the long term, they may receive unfavorable decisions in future disputes in which experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& are involved.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The worker asserted that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular employee, not a daily worker. Although no written employment contract had been prepared between the parties, making it difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the employment relationship, in light of the facts that, according to the daily work reports and wage statements, the monthly wage was paid by multiplying the basic daily wage rate by the number of working days, and that the total number of working days during the period in question was only 10 days, it is difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee. In addition, considering the submitted construction progress data and statements, it appears that the worker worked for a fixed period up to around the end of March 2026. Taking all of these circumstances together, the employment relationship is to be regarded as having ended upon expiration of the contract term …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The worker asserted that he had been dismissed even though he was a regular employee, not a daily worker. Although no written employment contract had been prepared between the parties, making it difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the employment relationship, in light of the facts that, according to the daily work reports and wage statements, the monthly wage was paid by multiplying the basic daily wage rate by the number of working days, and that the total number of working days during the period in question was only 10 days, it is difficult to conclude that the worker was a regular employee. In addition, considering the submitted construction progress data and statements, it appears that the worker worked for a fixed period up to around the end of March 2026. Taking all of these circumstances together, the employment relationship is to be regarded as having ended upon expiration of the contract term … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Staff for Educational Support Staff)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Staff for Educational Support Staff)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to employee status · expiration of contract term (10 days of daily employment) in the “Employee Status · Expiration of Contract Term (10 Days of Daily Employment) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
