[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issues of “employee status and regular workforce of five or more (postpartum care helper).” Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026UnfairDismissal654 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-14 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: Whether the workplace employed five or more workers on a regular basis. In light of the following: (i) it is difficult to view that the employer gave specific work instructions or exercised supervision over the work, (ii) there are recognized instances where the worker refused assignment to a mother due to her personal circumstances, (iii) there is no evidence that the employer imposed any separate sanctions for such refusal, and (iv) the worker’s remuneration was determined not by the employer but in accordance with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidelines, it was concluded that, under the Labor Standards Act … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the applicant, who had been working as a postpartum care helper, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission examined, as the central requirements for the remedy application, whether the applicant qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the workplace employed at least five workers on a regular basis. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether: (i) the postpartum care helper falls under the definition of a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, in that she provided labor in a subordinate relationship under the direction and supervision of the employer for the purpose of receiving wages; and (ii) including her, the workplace constitutes a business or workplace that regularly employs five or more workers. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel held that it was difficult to find that the employer gave specific work instructions or exercised supervision over the performance of duties; that there were instances where the applicant refused assignment to a mother based on her personal circumstances and the employer did not impose sanctions for such refusals; and that the applicant’s remuneration was determined not by the employer but pursuant to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidelines. In light of these factors, the panel found it difficult to regard the applicant as a worker in a subordinate relationship with the employer under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, upon reviewing the workplace’s employment insurance enrollment records, no other workers were identified besides the applicant. Considering this, together with the relevant legal principles for calculating the number of regularly employed workers (the concept of “regularity as a state,” based on the total number of worker-days in the most recent one-month period), the panel concluded that this workplace should be regarded as employing fewer than five workers on a regular basis. Accordingly, the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as a dismissal of a worker in a “workplace with five or more regular workers” to which Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act applies, and it was also difficult to recognize the applicant’s status as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. The panel therefore found that the requirements for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal were not satisfied. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) For a worker to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is crucial to establish both that he or she is in substance a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act—i.e., actually subject to the employer’s direction and supervision—and that the workplace regularly employs at least five workers. In particular, in cases such as postpartum care helpers, visiting instructors, and commissioned/freelance arrangements that outwardly take the form of “sole proprietorships” or “commission contracts,” it is necessary to specifically organize and document whether there was, in reality, a subordinate relationship with the employer in terms of the nature of the work, working hours, place of work, existence of sanctions, and the structure by which remuneration was determined. Although worker status is not determined uniformly based solely on whether one is enrolled in employment insurance or the four major social insurances, such enrollment records can serve as important indirect evidence when the Labor Relations Commission determines the number of regular workers. Workers should therefore regularly check their own employment status and insurance enrollment records. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing personnel such as postpartum care helpers, the contractual structure and operational practices must be designed so that it is substantively clear whether the relationship is one of contract for services/commission or an employment contract. The degree of work instruction and supervision, whether sanctions are imposed when an assignment to a mother is refused, and who determines remuneration and how, are core factors in determining worker status. Employers should therefore manage operations so that actual practices are consistent with the contractual form. Furthermore, whether the number of regular workers is five or more affects the applicability of dismissal restrictions under the Labor Standards Act and the availability of unfair dismissal remedy procedures. Employers should regularly review the number of regular workers based on the total number of worker-days in the most recent one-month period. To prevent similar disputes, it is advisable to maintain an ongoing advisory relationship with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to periodically review whether contracts and actual operations conform to the relevant legal principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History Whether the workplace employed five or more workers on a regular basis: In light of the following—(i) it is difficult to view that the employer gave specific work instructions or exercised supervision over the work, (ii) there are recognized instances where the worker refused assignment to a mother due to her personal circumstances, (iii) there is no evidence that the employer imposed any separate sanctions for the worker’s refusal of assignment, and (iv) the worker’s remuneration was determined not by the employer but in accordance with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidelines—it is difficult to regard the worker as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, a review of the workplace’s employment insurance enrollment records shows that no other workers were identified, and thus the number of workers regularly employed at the workplace is determined to be fewer than five. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Whether the workplace employed five or more workers on a regular basis: In light of the following—(i) it is difficult to view that the employer gave specific work instructions or exercised supervision over the work, (ii) there are recognized instances where the worker refused assignment to a mother due to her personal circumstances, (iii) there is no evidence that the employer imposed any separate sanctions for the worker’s refusal of assignment, and (iv) the worker’s remuneration was determined not by the employer but in accordance with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidelines—it is difficult to regard the worker as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, a review of the workplace’s employment insurance enrollment records shows that no other workers were identified, and thus the number of workers regularly employed at the workplace is determined to be fewer than five. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Resolution of Internal Organizational Conflict)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Employee status·Regular workforce of five or more (postpartum care helper), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Resolution of Internal Organizational Conflict)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to employee status·regular workforce of five or more (postpartum care helper) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status·Regular Workforce of Five or More (Postpartum Care Helper).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article