[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “misunderstanding as to the existence of dismissal (interview with head of nutrition department).” Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae475 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: The head of the nutrition department informed the employee during an interview that, if she did not submit a resignation letter, she would have to continue coming to work; despite several requests from the General Affairs Department for her to report to work, the employee neither contacted the company nor actually reported to work; it is difficult to regard the head of the nutrition department as a person with personnel authority; and no other objective materials were found to prove a dismissal. In light of these points, it was held difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, after an interview with the head of the nutrition department, the employee stopped reporting to work and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging that the employer had unfairly dismissed her. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employment relationship had been terminated by dismissal, taking into account the content of the head of the nutrition department’s statements, the repeated requests from the General Affairs Department for the employee to report to work, and the scope of the personnel authority holders. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether “based solely on the statements made during the interview with the head of the nutrition department and the subsequent circumstances of the employee’s failure to report to work, it can be deemed that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.” In other words, the core question was whether the employee’s cessation of attendance resulted from a notice of dismissal by the employer, or whether it was closer to the employee’s own choice or resignation. Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that, during the interview, the employer (through the head of the nutrition department) informed the employee that, if she did not submit a resignation letter, she would have to continue reporting to work; that, despite several requests from the General Affairs Department for her to report to work, the employee neither contacted the company nor actually reported to work; that it is difficult to regard the head of the nutrition department as a person with personnel authority; and that no other objective materials were found to prove a dismissal. Accordingly, it was deemed difficult to view the termination of the employment relationship as having occurred through a unilateral notice of dismissal by the employer. Therefore, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and it did not proceed to examine the remaining issues, which presupposed the existence of a dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure, as far as possible, circumstances and materials that objectively reveal the employer’s expression of intent to dismiss, rather than relying on mere misunderstanding or speculation. In particular, if an employee stops reporting to work on the sole basis of statements made by a colleague or middle manager who has no personnel authority, believing that they have been dismissed, there is a high risk that such absence will instead be treated as unauthorized absence. Accordingly, employees should clearly confirm with the person holding personnel authority or the HR department whether a dismissal has in fact occurred. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to avoid expressions in resignation recommendations or work-related interviews that may cause misunderstanding, and to record, in a form that can be preserved (such as in writing or by text message), the process of confirming whether the employee intends to continue working or intends to resign. In addition, where the employee stops reporting to work even though no actual dismissal has been made, the employer should, as in this case, repeatedly issue requests to report to work in the name of the General Affairs/HR Department and clearly record the content of such requests. Doing so will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the non-existence of a dismissal. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History In light of the facts that the head of the nutrition department informed the employee during the interview that, if she did not submit a resignation letter, she would have to continue reporting to work; that, despite several requests from the General Affairs Department for her to report to work, the employee neither contacted the company nor actually reported to work; that it is difficult to regard the head of the nutrition department as a person with personnel authority; and that no other objective materials were found to prove a dismissal, it is deemed difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which presuppose the existence of a dismissal. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision In light of the facts that the head of the nutrition department informed the employee during the interview that, if she did not submit a resignation letter, she would have to continue reporting to work; that, despite several requests from the General Affairs Department for her to report to work, the employee neither contacted the company nor actually reported to work; that it is difficult to regard the head of the nutrition department as a person with personnel authority; and that no other objective materials were found to prove a dismissal, it is deemed difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which presuppose the existence of a dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Misunderstanding as to Existence of Dismissal (Restriction on Access to Worksite; Refusal of Offer of Another Worksite)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, misunderstanding as to existence of dismissal (interview with head of nutrition department), 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, “Disciplinary Dismissal (Arbitrary Change of Working Hours · Unauthorized Opening of Grievance Box),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to misunderstanding as to existence of dismissal (interview with head of nutrition department) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstanding as to Existence of Dismissal (Interview with Head of Nutrition Department).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article