This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of forced resignation (removal from team chat room).” [Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of forced resignation (removal from team chat room).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1429 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, alleging that the employer’s demand for submission of a resignation letter and the employee’s removal from the team chat room, among other factors, constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that the situation was, in substance, a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer, akin to a redundancy dismissal. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign and that there had been no unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there were interviews surrounding the submission of a resignation letter, references to treating the situation as an unauthorized resignation, and removal from a team chat room, the employee’s resignation should nonetheless be regarded as a dismissal or forced resignation by the employer. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that there were no specific circumstances confirming that the employer had unilaterally set the termination date of the employment contract as 13 February 2026, or that the employer had exercised its superior position or exerted coercion in that process. The panel also noted that, according to the transcript of the interview, the core of the conversation appeared to concern whether a resignation letter would be prepared and how the reasons for resignation would be stated, rather than notification of dismissal. Furthermore, the employee’s removal from the team chat room could be viewed as a measure for internal communication convenience or conflict management, and therefore it was difficult to conclude that such removal, in and of itself, constituted an expression of an intention to dismiss. In light of these factors, the panel held that the unfair dismissal alleged by the employee could not be recognized. The panel determined that the termination in this case could not readily be regarded, in substance, as a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer. Unless the employee’s expressed or discussed intention to resign could be deemed a declaration contrary to the employee’s true intent or made under duress, it could not be found to constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When an employee is considering resignation and engages in interviews with the employer, it is important to clearly distinguish whether the employee is “being notified of dismissal” or “discussing the method of resignation.” To argue that there was coercion in the process of submitting a resignation letter or discussing resignation, there must be evidence in recordings or messenger logs showing the employer’s specific pressure and unilateral expression of an intention to terminate. Employees should be aware that mere recommendations to resign or discussions of the reasons for resignation are, by themselves, unlikely to suffice for a finding of unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, during interviews related to resignation, expressions that could be misunderstood as dismissal notices (such as “we will treat this as unauthorized resignation”) should be avoided as much as possible. Employers should clearly present alternatives—resignation versus continued employment—so that the employee can make a voluntary choice. In addition, when implementing personnel measures such as removal from a team chat room, exclusion from seating, or exclusion from work duties, employers should objectively explain the purpose and necessity of such measures, and retain documentation or recordings. This preparation is important so that, before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer can demonstrate that the measures were taken for “business or conflict-management reasons,” rather than as a “prelude to dismissal.” To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to correctly understand the legal principles distinguishing resignation from dismissal and to organize, in advance, the facts—such as interview transcripts and messenger records—that support the conclusion that the employer’s intention was to “negotiate a mutual termination,” rather than to dismiss. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... There are no circumstances confirming that the employer unilaterally set the termination date of the employment relationship as 13 February 2026, or that the employer exercised its superior position or exerted coercion in that process; (3) the employee argues that, during the interview on 8 February 2026, the employer’s demand that the employee prepare a resignation letter and the statement that the situation would be treated as unauthorized resignation if the employee refused amounted to a dismissal notice. However, according to the transcript, the topic of conversation consistently concerned the preparation of a resignation letter and the manner of stating the reasons for resignation, and thus appears to have been merely a discussion of the method of resignation rather than notification of dismissal; (4) removal from the team chat room may be a measure for internal communication convenience or conflict management, and therefore, in and of itself, ... 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ... There are no circumstances confirming that the employer unilaterally set the termination date of the employment relationship as 13 February 2026, or that the employer exercised its superior position or exerted coercion in that process; (3) the employee argues that, during the interview on 8 February 2026, the employer’s demand that the employee prepare a resignation letter and the statement that the situation would be treated as unauthorized resignation if the employee refused amounted to a dismissal notice. However, according to the transcript, the topic of conversation consistently concerned the preparation of a resignation letter and the manner of stating the reasons for resignation, and thus appears to have been merely a discussion of the method of resignation rather than notification of dismissal; (4) removal from the team chat room may be a measure for internal communication convenience or conflict management, and therefore, in and of itself, ... / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (3-Year Fixed-Term)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of forced resignation (removal from team chat room), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (3-Year Fixed-Term)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of forced resignation (removal from team chat room) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Removal from Team Chat Room).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article