[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded at the Central Labor Relations Commission with the first-instance decision being upheld on the issue of “existence of employment relationship (event assistant daily worker).” Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2026BuHae125 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Re‑review Application 2026-07-06 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld Key Issue Summary: ... 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the core issues before the Labor Relations Commission were whether the applicant was a “worker” and whether an employment relationship existed. Among the decisions organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is an important example concerning employment relationships in the form of daily workers and event assistants. In particular, the Commission’s view that, taking into account the wording of the job posting, weekly wage payment, and the format of employment insurance reporting, the relationship constituted a daily employment contract on a one-day basis, offers implications for future disputes over redundancy dismissals or contract termination. Ⅰ. Case Overview The applicant had been providing labor to the employer in a form where work was performed only when needed for events and similar occasions, and it appears that the job posting included wording on a certain work period, a three-day probation, and weekly wage payment. The worker claimed to have been dismissed and filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, and the dispute continued up to the re‑review stage before the Central Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a worker who was assigned work only when needed for events and similar occasions was engaged under a one-day daily employment contract so that the employment relationship automatically terminated at the end of each workday, or whether there was a continuous employment relationship such that the situation constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case held that, even though the employer mentioned work period, a three-day probation, and weekly wage payment in the job posting, these were merely wording to secure daily workers who could work for a longer term and for convenience in payment; that the employer processed the worker’s employment insurance insured status using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” form applicable to daily workers; and that the actual work was not assigned on a regular and fixed basis but rather operated in a manner where, whenever work was needed for events and similar occasions, the employer checked the worker’s availability and determined workdays by individual agreement. In light of these factors, the Commission found it reasonable to view the employment relationship between the parties not as a continuous employment contract for a fixed term, but as a daily employment contract on a one-day basis. As for the dismissal in this case, the Commission determined that, given the structure in which the employment relationship automatically terminated at the end of each workday, there was no separate act of dismissal, and therefore the measure could not be found unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Even when working as an event assistant, short-term part-timer, or daily worker, the possibility of obtaining relief from unfair dismissal may differ depending on whether the actual working pattern was regular and continuous, whether workdays were assigned unilaterally by the employer, and how wages were reported and paid. As in this case, if the Labor Relations Commission views the arrangement as a one-day contract structure, the situation may be assessed as “automatic contract termination” rather than “dismissal,” and an application for relief may be dismissed or rejected. It is therefore important to consistently secure materials and circumstantial evidence showing that, in reality, you worked in a manner close to that of a regular employee. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) For employers who utilize personnel for events, promotions, or short-term projects, it is advisable to ensure consistency among the wording of job postings, the form of employment contracts, the type of employment insurance reporting, and the method of work assignment. If you label workers as daily workers but in practice have them work on a regular and fixed schedule, or operate them as if they were regular employees without a fixed term, such facts may later serve as grounds for recognizing worker status and continuous employment to the employer’s disadvantage when a worker claims unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal. Even when adopting a daily employment contract structure, it is desirable to clearly establish internal criteria and procedures for work assignment so as to prevent abuse of managerial authority or discrimination issues arising from effectively excluding or disadvantaging specific workers. To prevail in this type of case, bear in mind that it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles concerning the substance of the employment relationship, and to systematically organize materials supporting the nature of the working arrangement, such as employment insurance reporting records, work assignment records, and the wording of job postings and contracts. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... The references to work period, three-day probation, and weekly wage payment appear to be nothing more than wording in the job posting to secure daily workers who could work for a longer term and for convenience in payment; (3) the employer processed the worker’s employment insurance insured status report using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” applicable to daily workers; and the worker’s work was operated in a manner where, rather than being assigned on a regular basis, the employer confirmed availability whenever work was needed for events and similar occasions and then assigned work by individual agreement. In light of these factors, it is reasonable to view the employment relationship between the parties as a daily employment contract on a one-day basis, and to consider that the employment relationship automatically terminated at the end of each workday, so that no dismissal existed. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... The references to work period, three-day probation, and weekly wage payment appear to be nothing more than wording in the job posting to secure daily workers who could work for a longer term and for convenience in payment; (3) the employer processed the worker’s employment insurance insured status report using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” applicable to daily workers; and the worker’s work was operated in a manner where, rather than being assigned on a regular basis, the employer confirmed availability whenever work was needed for events and similar occasions and then assigned work by individual agreement. In light of these factors, it is reasonable to view the employment relationship between the parties as a daily employment contract on a one-day basis, and to consider that the employment relationship automatically terminated at the end of each workday, so that no dismissal existed. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: - Case Result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of employment relationship (event assistant daily worker), others, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Transfer of Head Nurse of Ward 55)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of employment relationship (event assistant daily worker) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Employment Relationship (Event Assistant Daily Worker).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article