[Case Information] This case is a determination in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “redundancy dismissal (termination of subcontract at construction site).” Date of decision: 2026-08-20 · Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해627 Key issue summary: The employee argued that personnel reduction and other managerial reasons constituted a dismissal. However, ① no written employment contract was executed between the parties, making it impossible to confirm the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was difficult to view the work performed by the employee as regular and continuous; ② the work at the site was performed sequentially in teams, making it difficult for a specific worker to perform the work alone; ③ the original contractor did not award the subsequent work to the company on a subcontract basis... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had been working temporarily at a construction site was excluded from the site upon completion of the relevant stage of work (process), and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission found that the employer had notified the employee in advance of the planned withdrawal from the site and the scheduled end of the work, and that the relevant process had in fact been completed. On this basis, it held that the employment contract had simply terminated automatically and that no dismissal existed, and therefore rejected the claim of unfair dismissal. In the course of this case, Labor Law Firm Law& organized the legal arguments focusing on the inherently temporary and variable employment structure unique to construction sites and on the limits of the legal concept of dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a “dismissal” by the employer can be deemed to exist where the employee’s duties are temporary and project-based, and the employer withdraws from the site because the relevant process has been completed. In other words, even if, from the employee’s perspective, it feels like a de facto termination of employment due to personnel reduction and withdrawal from the site, the key legal question was whether this constitutes a dismissal, or instead the natural termination of an originally temporary employment relationship. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that, although the employer and the employee did not execute a written employment contract, it was difficult to regard the work performed by the employee as regular and continuous in nature, that the remaining work in the process had already entered its final stage, that the work at the site was structured to proceed sequentially in teams so that it was difficult for a specific employee to continue performing the work alone, and that the original contractor had entered into a subcontract for the subsequent process with a company other than the applicant company, so that the work process at the site had in fact come to an end. Taking into account that the employer had, from around April 2026, given prior notice of the wrapping up of the process and withdrawal from the site and the possibility of termination of the employment relationship, and that, given the subcontracting structure of construction works, the construction period and workforce size are highly variable depending on the progress of the process, the panel determined that, even though the expression “personnel reduction” was used, it was difficult to view this as a unilateral dismissal measure such as a redundancy dismissal. The panel held that it was appropriate to evaluate the measure in this case as the natural extinction of the employment relationship due to the expiration of the employment term or completion of the process, and, on the ground that no dismissal itself existed, rejected the claim of unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, in industries such as construction sites and project sites where manpower needs fluctuate sharply by process, it is necessary at the outset to clearly confirm your employment type, contract period, and whether you may be reassigned after completion of the process. In particular, rather than immediately concluding that you have been made redundant solely because terms such as “personnel reduction” or “withdrawal from site” are used, it is important to specifically organize such matters as how the contract period was actually set, whether the work itself was regular and continuous, and what guidance you received regarding the possibility of transfer to another site or position. If you are considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal in the future, you should secure as much objective material as possible, such as prior notification messages, notices, process schedules, and deployment records. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when assigning employees to temporary or project-based work, it is necessary to clearly state in the employment contract the possibility that the employment relationship may terminate upon completion of the process or withdrawal from the site, and to sufficiently explain and notify the expected termination time and reasons in line with the actual progress of the process. In particular, in the construction and subcontracting context, rather than attempting to evade responsibility for dismissal solely on the ground that the construction period is variable, employers should manage matters transparently—such as preparing contracts, giving prior notice, and reviewing the possibility of reassignment—so that there is no dispute over whether the situation constitutes “redundancy dismissal or contract expiration.” If such basic arrangements are not in place, there is a substantial risk that, in similar cases, the Labor Relations Commission will find that a dismissal exists and determine that it is unfair. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that no dismissal existed and that the employment contract had simply terminated automatically, on the grounds that the employee’s duties were of a temporary nature and that the work performed by the employee was in its final stage, and that the employer had given prior notice of withdrawal from the site and the scheduled end of the work. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee argued that managerial reasons such as personnel reduction constituted a dismissal. However, ① no written employment contract was executed between the parties, making it impossible to confirm the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was difficult to view the work performed by the employee as regular and continuous; ② the work at the site was performed sequentially in teams, making it difficult for a specific worker to perform the work alone; ③ it was objectively confirmed that the original contractor did not award the subsequent work to the company on a subcontract basis but instead entered into a subcontract with another company, so that the work process at the site had come to an end; ④ the employer had, from around April 2026, given prior notice that the remaining work in the process was in its final stage and that there would be withdrawal from the site and termination of the employment relationship; and ⑤ given the characteristics of construction sites, the construction period is variable depending on whether there is a subcontract, and the workforce fluctuates significantly depending on the process. Taking all of these circumstances into comprehensive consideration, the Commission determined that it was difficult to find that a dismissal existed in this case. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Remedy Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal (termination of subcontract at construction site), restructuring, 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Bullying)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to redundancy dismissal (termination of subcontract at construction site) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Redundancy Dismissal (Termination of Subcontract at Construction Site).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article