Corporate trends / Performance record
Whether Dismissal Exists (Daily Workers Supplied Through Manpower Agencies): Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 54)
- Date2026/01/09 04:03
- Read 215
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3980 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis, and that, absent any objection, the same contract would be automatically renewed under the same conditions, and (iii) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, a worker who had been assigned to the user’s workplace through a manpower supply company filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the form of the employment contract and the circumstances of its renewal to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issues in this case were: “Whether a worker who, as an employee of a manpower supply company, has repeatedly entered into one‑day employment contracts can be regarded not as a daily worker but as a regular, continuous worker, and whether the refusal to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked; the employment contract stated that it was a daily employment contract on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, it would be automatically renewed under the same conditions; and the manpower supply company had notified the worker that it would no longer renew the contract.
Accordingly, the employment contract between the worker and the manpower supply company should essentially be viewed as a daily employment contract on a one‑day basis, and the Commission held that the employment relationship had merely ended due to the refusal to renew the contract.
The Commission held that, in this case, there was no expression of intent by the employer constituting “dismissal” in form, and that the employment relationship should be regarded as having naturally expired due to the expiration of the term and refusal to renew. Therefore, it ruled that this did not constitute “unfair dismissal.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker claims to be a regular employee, if written documents such as the recruitment notice and employment contract, as well as the actual method of wage payment and operation, support a daily employment structure, it will be difficult to obtain a finding of unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission. To assert a “legitimate expectation of continued employment” based on repeated renewals, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence, such as long‑term repeated renewals, the company’s practices, and the criteria and procedures for renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of manpower supply companies or user enterprises, it is important to clearly specify the form of employment (daily, fixed‑term, or regular) in the recruitment notice and employment contract, and to manage actual operations so that they are consistent with that form. In particular, if the employment relationship is to be terminated not by collective or direct dismissal but by expiration of the contract term or refusal to renew, the employer should apply renewal practices and criteria consistently and sufficiently inform workers in advance that they are employed as daily or fixed‑term workers and that renewal is at the employer’s discretion.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, the same contract would be renewed without separate contractual procedures, and (iii) the manpower supply company refused to renew the contract. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment contract between the parties was a daily employment contract and that the employment relationship had ended due to the refusal to renew the contract, and therefore that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, the same contract would be renewed without separate contractual procedures, and (iii) the manpower supply company refused to renew the contract. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment contract between the parties was a daily employment contract and that the employment relationship had ended due to the refusal to renew the contract, and therefore that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Affiliated Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Order to Return to Work after Withdrawal of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (3‑Month Work Evaluation Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Order to Return to Work after Withdrawal of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies) can be viewed together in the “Whether Dismissal Exists (Daily Workers Supplied Through Manpower Agencies) Related Decisions List.”
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3980 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis, and that, absent any objection, the same contract would be automatically renewed under the same conditions, and (iii) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, a worker who had been assigned to the user’s workplace through a manpower supply company filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the form of the employment contract and the circumstances of its renewal to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issues in this case were: “Whether a worker who, as an employee of a manpower supply company, has repeatedly entered into one‑day employment contracts can be regarded not as a daily worker but as a regular, continuous worker, and whether the refusal to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked; the employment contract stated that it was a daily employment contract on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, it would be automatically renewed under the same conditions; and the manpower supply company had notified the worker that it would no longer renew the contract.
Accordingly, the employment contract between the worker and the manpower supply company should essentially be viewed as a daily employment contract on a one‑day basis, and the Commission held that the employment relationship had merely ended due to the refusal to renew the contract.
The Commission held that, in this case, there was no expression of intent by the employer constituting “dismissal” in form, and that the employment relationship should be regarded as having naturally expired due to the expiration of the term and refusal to renew. Therefore, it ruled that this did not constitute “unfair dismissal.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker claims to be a regular employee, if written documents such as the recruitment notice and employment contract, as well as the actual method of wage payment and operation, support a daily employment structure, it will be difficult to obtain a finding of unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission. To assert a “legitimate expectation of continued employment” based on repeated renewals, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence, such as long‑term repeated renewals, the company’s practices, and the criteria and procedures for renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of manpower supply companies or user enterprises, it is important to clearly specify the form of employment (daily, fixed‑term, or regular) in the recruitment notice and employment contract, and to manage actual operations so that they are consistent with that form. In particular, if the employment relationship is to be terminated not by collective or direct dismissal but by expiration of the contract term or refusal to renew, the employer should apply renewal practices and criteria consistently and sufficiently inform workers in advance that they are employed as daily or fixed‑term workers and that renewal is at the employer’s discretion.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, the same contract would be renewed without separate contractual procedures, and (iii) the manpower supply company refused to renew the contract. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment contract between the parties was a daily employment contract and that the employment relationship had ended due to the refusal to renew the contract, and therefore that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Although the worker argued that he was not a daily worker, (i) the recruitment notice of the manpower supply company, which supplies labor to the user, specified conditions based on days worked, (ii) although there was a dispute as to whether a contract had been concluded, the written employment contract stated that the employment relationship was a daily employment relationship created on a one‑day basis and that, in the absence of any objection, the same contract would be renewed without separate contractual procedures, and (iii) the manpower supply company refused to renew the contract. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment contract between the parties was a daily employment contract and that the employment relationship had ended due to the refusal to renew the contract, and therefore that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Affiliated Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Order to Return to Work after Withdrawal of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (3‑Month Work Evaluation Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Order to Return to Work after Withdrawal of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether dismissal exists (daily workers supplied through manpower agencies) can be viewed together in the “Whether Dismissal Exists (Daily Workers Supplied Through Manpower Agencies) Related Decisions List.”
