[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of hiring commitment (city gas safety manager).” Decision date: 2026-08-04 · Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해693 Key issue summary: No evidence whatsoever was submitted to show that, at the time of the interview, the employer expressed to the worker any intention amounting to a final acceptance, commencement of work, or other confirmation of hiring or hiring commitment. According to the materials submitted by the employer, the employer posted on a job portal site a recruitment notice for one safety manager at a city gas charging facility; the worker applied on 2026-05-27, and the employer conducted an interview with the worker on 2026-06-01, after which… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, during the recruitment process for a “safety manager” at a city gas charging facility, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. However, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission held that no hiring commitment had been formed between the parties. The worker argued that he had been hired following the interview and contested the matter as an unfair dismissal, while the employer maintained that there had been no hiring commitment or final notice of acceptance. The Commission conducted its hearing on the premise that the key issue was whether there had been a definite expression of intent to hire sufficient to establish an employment contract or hiring commitment, based on objective evidence such as text messages exchanged between the employer and the worker after the interview and the contents of the job posting on the portal site. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, “in the absence of a separate written contract after the interview, the employer’s intention to hire can be inferred solely from oral statements or surrounding circumstances, and further, whether a hiring commitment was formed so that the worker’s status as an employee—required as a precondition for an unfair dismissal remedy application—can be recognized.” For an application for remedy from unfair dismissal to be viable, there must be an explicit or implicit employment relationship with the employer as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the core issue in this case was whether an employment contract or hiring commitment could be recognized based only on the job posting, the interview, and the subsequent text message exchanges. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employer merely posted a simple recruitment notice on a job portal site, that immediately after the interview the employer sent a text message stating that “the safety manager position you applied for has been finally filled by another person,” and that, upon receiving this message, the worker replied the same day with a message to the effect that “I have been accepted by another company and have received my appointment; I am sorry that I could not have a connection with your company.” In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer had made any specific and definitive expression of intent to hire the worker amounting to “final acceptance” or “hiring commitment.” There were no subsequent procedural steps such as requesting submission of documents premised on a hiring commitment or execution of an employment contract, or providing guidance on preparing an employment contract. Nor was any objective evidence submitted by the worker to support the formation of a hiring commitment. Accordingly, the panel held that the “dismissal” in this case was merely a failure to hire in a situation where no employment relationship or hiring commitment had been formed in the first place, and therefore the alleged unfair dismissal could not be recognized. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it is difficult to regard positive remarks or a favorable atmosphere during the interview alone as sufficient to establish a hiring commitment. It is very important to secure evidence of “specific and definitive expressions of intent to hire,” such as a final acceptance notice, designation of a start date, or guidance on preparing an employment contract. Note that the Labor Relations Commission and the courts generally place the burden of proof regarding the existence of a hiring commitment or the formation of an employment contract on the worker. Therefore, you should carefully keep and store text messages, emails, and recruitment notices to see whether the employer has explicitly used expressions such as “final acceptance,” “hiring confirmed,” or “start work from [date],” and whether, based on such expressions, the employer has actually instructed or required you to prepare for joining the company. Doing so will enable you to assert your rights more effectively in any future dispute over unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly distinguish whether all communications during the recruitment stage constitute merely an “invitation to make an offer,” or whether they amount to a definitive expression of intent forming an employment contract or hiring commitment. In particular, it is helpful for preventing disputes to notify unsuccessful candidates promptly and clearly after interviews, and to refrain from giving instructions premised on hiring—such as designating a start date or requesting execution of an employment contract—before issuing a final acceptance notice. It is also advisable to establish work rules or internal regulations concerning recruitment procedures, specifying what wording and steps are required for a hiring commitment or employment contract to be formed. This allows the company to present consistent internal standards in any future dispute before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts over “whether a hiring commitment was formed,” thereby reducing dispute risk. To prevail in this type of case, employers must accurately understand the legal significance of each stage—job posting, interview, acceptance notice, and contract execution—and develop HR and labor-management capabilities to design and manage evidence and procedures in advance in line with those legal meanings. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that no hiring commitment had been formed between the parties. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning No evidence was submitted to show that, at the time of the interview, the employer expressed to the worker any intention amounting to a final acceptance, commencement of work, or other confirmation of hiring or hiring commitment. According to the materials submitted by the employer, the employer posted on a job portal site a recruitment notice for one safety manager at a city gas charging facility; the worker applied on 2026-05-27, and the employer conducted an interview with the worker on 2026-06-01. On the following day, 2026-06-02 at 14:51, the employer sent the worker a message notifying him of the hiring result, stating that “the Jangsu safety manager position you applied for this time has been finally filled by another person.” After receiving this notification, the worker sent a message the same day at 18:50 to the effect that “I have been accepted by another company and have received an appointment as of 2026-07-01” and “I am sorry that I could not have a connection with your company.” In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to find that the employer expressed a definitive intention to hire the worker, and no other objective circumstances can be identified to support such a finding. Accordingly, it is determined that no hiring commitment was formed between the parties. [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case No.: Initial decision upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision and Management)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of hiring commitment (city gas safety manager), 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, “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Repeated Traffic Accidents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of hiring commitment (city gas safety manager) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Hiring Commitment (City Gas Safety Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article