[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (refusal of alternative worksite by employee restricted from site access).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1483 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The employee alleged that the employer notified dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but there was no evidence to prove this; the employer proposed work at another site to the employee who had been restricted from entering the original site, and the employee refused this proposal. In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to find that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and thus no dismissal existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee claimed that the employer unfairly dismissed him by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow.” At the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, the central issue was whether a dismissal existed at all. The Commission examined the cause of termination of the employment relationship, focusing on the facts that the employer proposed work at another site to the employee after site access had been restricted, and that the dispute arose after the employee refused this proposal. It is worth noting that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles similar issues in cases where the form of termination of employment is in dispute, such as site changes, collective redundancies, and the distinction between resignation and dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was whether the mere allegation by the employee that the employer said, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” without any objective proof, is sufficient to find that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Regarding whether the employer actually gave notice of dismissal, the panel found that there was no objective evidence supporting this allegation other than the employee’s own statement. It also noted that, when the employee became subject to a site access restriction, the employer took steps to maintain the employment relationship by proposing work at another site, and that the employee himself refused this alternative worksite proposal. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that it was difficult to find that the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and therefore concluded that no “dismissal” existed in this case. As the alleged dismissal in this case did not in fact exist, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was premised on a non-existent dismissal, was found to be groundless. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to assert unfair dismissal, it is important to secure at least some evidence proving that the employer actually expressed an intention to dismiss (such as text messages, recordings, messenger logs, or a written notice of dismissal). In particular, whether there was a proposal for a site change, transfer, or reassignment, and the circumstances under which the employee accepted or refused such proposal, will later become key evidence distinguishing “dismissal” from “voluntary refusal to provide labor.” Accordingly, employees should record as concretely as possible the content of conversations and surrounding circumstances at the time. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even where there is no intention to terminate the employment relationship, using emotional expressions such as “Just quit” or “Do not come in from tomorrow” carries a high risk of later escalating into a dismissal dispute. Where HR measures such as site access restrictions, transfers, reassignments, or redundancies are required, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly set out in writing or by email that the measure does not constitute dismissal, and to specify the locations and conditions under which future work is possible, while also documenting the process in which the employee refuses such proposals. To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to have a prior understanding of the allocation of the burden of proof regarding the existence of dismissal and the cause of termination, and of the legal distinctions among resignation, termination by mutual agreement, and dismissal, and to have the capacity to systematically organize and prove the facts in line with these legal principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee alleged that the employer notified dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but there was no evidence to prove this. Considering that the employer proposed work at another site to the employee who had been subjected to a site access restriction, and that the employee refused this proposal, it was difficult to find that the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, no dismissal existed. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee alleged that the employer notified dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but there was no evidence to prove this. Considering that the employer proposed work at another site to the employee who had been subjected to a site access restriction, and that the employee refused this proposal, it was difficult to find that the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, no dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (refusal of alternative worksite by employee restricted from site access), 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 Case on Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Denial of Practice of Re-Employment of Fixed-Term Employees),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (refusal of alternative worksite by employee restricted from site access) can be found in the “Existence of Dismissal (Refusal of Alternative Worksite by Employee Restricted from Site Access) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article