Corporate trends / Performance record
Misunderstood Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 59)
- Date2026/01/10 04:13
- Read 209
[Case Information]
- Case title: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Full acceptance
- Adjudicating body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 567 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer asserted that the employment contracts had been terminated based on an agreement with the employee representative. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, found this to constitute unfair dismissal and fully upheld the employees’ applications for remedy.
The Commission first acknowledged the existence of a dismissal and then denied its validity on the ground that the employer failed to provide written notice of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It ordered monetary compensation equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, this can be seen as a typical unfair dismissal dispute in which a claim of mutual termination is combined with a failure to comply with the written notice requirement.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The key issues in this case are:
“Whether a blanket agreement with an employee representative alone is sufficient to recognize an individual employee’s ‘mutual termination,’ and, absent acceptance of such a claim, whether termination of employment without written notice can constitute a valid dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that although the employer claimed to have mutually terminated the employment contracts with the employees through the employee representative, there was no evidence that the individual employees expressly consented to this or manifested an intention to resign on their own. It further found that the termination of the employment relationship resulted from the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and that the employer had completely failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was nothing more than a unilateral dismissal by the employer disguised as a mutual termination, and that it was unfair due to a serious procedural defect in failing to satisfy the written notice requirement.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if the company claims “we already agreed with the employee representative” or “everyone decided to quit together,” there is substantial room to contest the matter as a dismissal if you yourself did not clearly express an intention to resign.
In addition, in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it becomes a critical issue whether you received only an oral notice of dismissal or whether you were actually given a written document specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal. You should therefore preserve all related materials as much as possible, such as text messages, messenger logs, and emails.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to terminate employment by mutual agreement, you should not rely solely on consultations with the employee representative. Instead, you should obtain, for each individual employee, a written agreement based on the employee’s voluntary intent or a clear letter of resignation.
Furthermore, whether it is a redundancy dismissal or an ordinary dismissal, whenever you terminate an employment relationship in the form of a dismissal, you must, in advance, provide written notice stating the reason and timing of the dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Neglecting this requirement, in itself, can serve as a direct basis for a finding of unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.
B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Because the employer dismissed the employees in violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
The employees’ applications for a monetary compensation order are accepted. The amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 2,869,950, which includes the amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.
B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Because the employer dismissed the employees in violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
The employees’ applications for a monetary compensation order are accepted. The amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 2,869,950, which includes the amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Implied Renewal (Continuous Employment)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Full acceptance
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Voluntary Resignation (Pressure on Administrative Manager to Resign)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Failure to Form an Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstood Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative).”
- Case title: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Full acceptance
- Adjudicating body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 567 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer asserted that the employment contracts had been terminated based on an agreement with the employee representative. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, found this to constitute unfair dismissal and fully upheld the employees’ applications for remedy.
The Commission first acknowledged the existence of a dismissal and then denied its validity on the ground that the employer failed to provide written notice of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It ordered monetary compensation equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, this can be seen as a typical unfair dismissal dispute in which a claim of mutual termination is combined with a failure to comply with the written notice requirement.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The key issues in this case are:
“Whether a blanket agreement with an employee representative alone is sufficient to recognize an individual employee’s ‘mutual termination,’ and, absent acceptance of such a claim, whether termination of employment without written notice can constitute a valid dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that although the employer claimed to have mutually terminated the employment contracts with the employees through the employee representative, there was no evidence that the individual employees expressly consented to this or manifested an intention to resign on their own. It further found that the termination of the employment relationship resulted from the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and that the employer had completely failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was nothing more than a unilateral dismissal by the employer disguised as a mutual termination, and that it was unfair due to a serious procedural defect in failing to satisfy the written notice requirement.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if the company claims “we already agreed with the employee representative” or “everyone decided to quit together,” there is substantial room to contest the matter as a dismissal if you yourself did not clearly express an intention to resign.
In addition, in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it becomes a critical issue whether you received only an oral notice of dismissal or whether you were actually given a written document specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal. You should therefore preserve all related materials as much as possible, such as text messages, messenger logs, and emails.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to terminate employment by mutual agreement, you should not rely solely on consultations with the employee representative. Instead, you should obtain, for each individual employee, a written agreement based on the employee’s voluntary intent or a clear letter of resignation.
Furthermore, whether it is a redundancy dismissal or an ordinary dismissal, whenever you terminate an employment relationship in the form of a dismissal, you must, in advance, provide written notice stating the reason and timing of the dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Neglecting this requirement, in itself, can serve as a direct basis for a finding of unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.
B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Because the employer dismissed the employees in violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
The employees’ applications for a monetary compensation order are accepted. The amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 2,869,950, which includes the amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment contracts were mutually terminated with the employees through the employee representative. However, as there was no proof that the employees agreed to such termination or that they voluntarily resigned, it is difficult to regard this as a mutual termination. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.
B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Because the employer dismissed the employees in violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
The employees’ applications for a monetary compensation order are accepted. The amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 2,869,950, which includes the amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the contract expiration date. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Implied Renewal (Continuous Employment)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Full acceptance
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Voluntary Resignation (Pressure on Administrative Manager to Resign)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Failure to Form an Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to misunderstood mutual termination (agreement with employee representative) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstood Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative).”
