[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of formation of hiring commitment (oral notice by branch manager).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1633 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issue: In light of the employer’s decision to put hiring on hold and the circumstances in which the employer’s intent was conveyed through a lower-level employee (assistant manager), it was difficult to find that the CEO or managing director, who held hiring authority, directly and explicitly expressed an intent to hire to the worker. It was also difficult to find that the assistant manager had authority to convey the intent of such senior executives on their behalf. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the worker believed that hiring had been finalized based on what he was told by an assistant-manager-level employee of the company and prepared to join the company. The employer later put the hiring on hold or refused to hire, and the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. In this application for a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission examined, first, whether an employment contract had in fact been formed, and further, whether there had been a hiring commitment (pre-employment offer), and whether this was a necessary premise for the case. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether “a hiring commitment or employment contract can be deemed to have been formed solely on the basis of an oral notice and certain surrounding circumstances given by a lower-level employee (assistant manager) who is not a hiring authority such as the CEO or managing director.” In other words, in a situation where a notice of hiring being put on hold had been given, the question was whether the “final hiring” asserted by the worker could be legally recognized, and thus whether the worker status, which is a prerequisite for an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal, existed. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that: (i) there was in fact a decision by the employer to put hiring on hold; (ii) there was no evidence that the CEO or managing director, who had authority to hire, directly and explicitly expressed an intent to hire to the worker; and (iii) it was difficult to find that the assistant-manager-level employee who was said to have conveyed the hiring intent had authority to express the intent of the senior executives on their behalf. Accordingly, the panel held that there was insufficient objective evidence or surrounding circumstances to recognize the hiring commitment or the formation of an employment relationship as asserted by the worker. The panel therefore held that, because it was difficult to find that an employment contract relationship had been formed in the first place, the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) For a worker to assert unfair dismissal, the worker must first prove that an employment contract was formed, either expressly or impliedly. At the hiring-commitment stage, there must be objective materials evidencing a concrete expression of acceptance, such as a final acceptance notice, confirmation of the start date, and agreement on working conditions. In particular, workers should bear in mind that oral statements by lower-level employees such as assistant managers or junior staff are difficult to regard as an explicit acceptance by the person holding hiring authority. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) In the hiring process, the company should clearly communicate its intent regarding final acceptance, hiring on hold, or rejection through clear documents or emails, in order to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding. It is also important for dispute prevention to clearly define internally the scope of authority of hiring authorities and mere administrative staff, and to have training and guidelines in place so that staff members do not, on their own, use expressions that may sound like “final hiring.” This decision by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, the formation of an employment contract or hiring commitment is examined strictly as a threshold issue. Those considering the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures are advised to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and thoroughly prepare objective materials that can support the formation of a hiring commitment and employment contract. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History In light of the employer’s decision to put hiring on hold and the circumstances in which the employer’s intent was conveyed through a lower-level employee (assistant manager), it was difficult to find that the CEO or managing director, who held hiring authority, directly and explicitly expressed an intent to hire to the worker, and it was also difficult to find that the assistant manager had authority to convey the intent of such senior executives on their behalf. Accordingly, there was no objective evidence or surrounding circumstance sufficient to prove the formation of a hiring commitment or employment relationship, and it was therefore difficult to find that an employment contract relationship had been formed between the parties. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In light of the employer’s decision to put hiring on hold and the circumstances in which the employer’s intent was conveyed through a lower-level employee (assistant manager), it was difficult to find that the CEO or managing director, who held hiring authority, directly and explicitly expressed an intent to hire to the worker, and it was also difficult to find that the assistant manager had authority to convey the intent of such senior executives on their behalf. Accordingly, there was no objective evidence or surrounding circumstance sufficient to prove the formation of a hiring commitment or employment relationship, and it was therefore difficult to find that an employment contract relationship had been formed between the parties. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of formation of hiring commitment (oral notice by branch manager), 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, “‘Applicable Business Establishment (Saetbyeol Susan · Hanmaeum Aquaculture)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to denial of formation of hiring commitment (oral notice by branch manager) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Formation of Hiring Commitment (Oral Notice by Branch Manager)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article