[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “redundancy (end of construction site subcontract).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae627 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-20 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: The employee argued that the employer’s action constituted a dismissal on managerial grounds such as workforce reduction. However, ① no written employment contract had been concluded between the parties, making it impossible to verify the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was difficult to regard the work performed by the employee as having a permanent and continuous nature; ② the work at the site was carried out by teams in a sequential manner, making it difficult for a particular worker to perform the work independently; ③ the original contractor did not award the subsequent work to the company but instead entered into a subcontract with another company for the work to be performed in the future... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee who worked at a construction site and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the employer’s action constituted redundancy based on managerial reasons such as workforce reduction. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s dismissal amounted to unfair dismissal by comprehensively considering the term of the employment contract, the nature of the work, and the circumstances surrounding the end of the work process. Ultimately, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal in this case was dismissed. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether, in a situation where a subcontracted process at a construction site has come to an end, the employer’s measure of terminating an employee—whose employment contract term is unclear and whose work lacks permanence and continuity—constitutes an unfair dismissal in the nature of redundancy.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that: ① no written employment contract had been concluded between the parties, making it difficult to specify the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was hard to regard the work he performed as permanent and continuous in nature; ② the work at the site was carried out sequentially by teams, making it difficult to view it as a structure in which a particular employee continuously performs work alone; ③ it was objectively confirmed that the original contractor had entered into a subcontract with a company other than the employer for the subsequent process, so that the work process at this site had in fact come to an end; and ④ the employer had already been winding down the remaining processes and reducing the workforce at the site since around April 2026. In light of the above, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the dismissal in this case was an unfair dismissal disguised as workforce reduction, and that it instead had a strong character of process termination and contract termination due to managerial circumstances. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, in industries such as construction where work proceeds by process or project, it is important to secure evidence in advance regarding the term of one’s employment contract and the permanence and continuity of one’s work. Even in the absence of a written employment contract, it is necessary to prove employee status under the Labor Standards Act and the existence of continuous employment through the actual working patterns, directions and supervision, and the method of wage payment, in order to be in a more favorable position when contesting unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, to reduce disputes over redundancy or contract termination due to the end of a work process, it is advisable to clearly state in the employment contract the term, job description, and how the employment relationship will be handled upon project completion. In addition, objective materials concerning the end of the subcontracted process, the original contractor’s cessation of orders, and the background to workforce reduction should be organized in advance, as these will help substantiate the reality and necessity of the managerial circumstances before the Labor Relations Commission. In cases like this where the existence of unfair dismissal is in dispute, the legal principles applied require a comprehensive review of employee status, the term of the employment contract, the permanence and continuity of the work, and the objective circumstances surrounding the end of the work process. Therefore, in similar disputes, it is advisable at an early stage to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the facts and evidence. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee argued that the employer’s action constituted a dismissal on managerial grounds such as workforce reduction. However, ① no written employment contract had been concluded between the parties, making it impossible to verify the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was difficult to regard the work performed by the employee as having permanence and continuity; ② the work at the site was carried out by teams in a sequential manner, making it difficult for a particular worker to perform the work independently; ③ it was objectively confirmed that, for the work to be performed in the future, the original contractor did not award a subcontract to the company but instead entered into a subcontract with another company, and that the work process at the site had come to an end; ④ since around April 2026, the employer had been winding down the remaining ... 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The employee argued that the employer’s action constituted a dismissal on managerial grounds such as workforce reduction. However, ① no written employment contract had been concluded between the parties, making it impossible to verify the term of the employee’s employment contract, and it was difficult to regard the work performed by the employee as having permanence and continuity; ② the work at the site was carried out by teams in a sequential manner, making it difficult for a particular worker to perform the work independently; ③ it was objectively confirmed that, for the work to be performed in the future, the original contractor did not award a subcontract to the company but instead entered into a subcontract with another company, and that the work process at the site had come to an end; ④ since around April 2026, the employer had been winding down the remaining ... / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, redundancy (end of construction site subcontract), restructuring, 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 Decision Concerning ‘Reasonableness of Job Transfer (Separation Measure Due to Workplace Bullying)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to redundancy (end of construction site subcontract) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Redundancy (End of Construction Site Subcontract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article