[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “dispute over the existence of dismissal (statement to ‘have the employee resign’).” Date of decision: 2026-07-31 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae1967 Key issues in summary: (i) The employer was in the process of recruiting employees and part-timers to work from 05:30 to 14:30 on the premise that Director Choi’s resignation was scheduled; (ii) the employment contract stated working hours of 05:00 to 14:30; (iii) Director Choi worked early-morning shifts until 28 February 2026, during which period the worker reported to work at 09:00, but even after Director Choi’s resignation, on 1 March 2026, the worker again reported at 09:00 and Director Hwang instead … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Overview of the Case In this case, the worker, after being told by the employer, “If you do not come to work at the prescribed working hours, we will have no choice but to have you resign,” regarded this as an unfair dismissal and filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. In Case 2026BuHae1967, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employer had in fact unilaterally terminated the employment relationship—in other words, whether a dismissal existed. Labor Law Firm Law& continuously analyzes, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes where the existence of a dismissal is at issue, the criteria by which the Labor Relations Commission will regard an employer’s expression of intent as a dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer, while demanding compliance with prescribed working hours, used expressions such as “If this doesn’t work out, we’ll have to find someone else” and “Have [the employee] resign,” an employer’s unfair dismissal can be found even when the worker, on his own, stopped coming to work. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employer had been recruiting personnel for early-morning shifts from 05:30 to 14:30 on the assumption that the existing director would resign; that the employment contract specified working hours of 05:00 to 14:30; and that, although the worker had in practice continued to report to work at 09:00, even after the director’s resignation another director came in early in his place as a temporary measure. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employer’s strong demand that the worker comply with the working hours, coupled with a statement to the effect that “If the working conditions do not suit you, we will have to find someone else; we cannot continue having someone else clock in for you,” should be viewed as a warning or a conditional indication that it would be difficult to maintain the employment relationship in its current form if the contractually agreed working hours were not observed. In addition, the portion of the recording in which the director is heard saying “Have [the employee] resign” was made in the context of explaining that, if the working hours were not observed, the employer would have no choice but to reconsider the worker’s employment. It was therefore difficult to regard this as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss the worker. The panel also took into account that, while the worker claimed that he had been orally notified of his dismissal, the employer asserted that the worker voluntarily stopped coming to work after his request to change his working hours was not accepted, and that the parties’ positions were thus in direct conflict. Considering all of these circumstances together, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment contract, and held that the mere fact that the worker unilaterally stopped coming to work on the assumption that he had been dismissed by the employer was insufficient to establish the existence of a dismissal. Accordingly, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was rejected. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s standpoint, it is essential to carefully verify whether the employer’s statement specifically conveyed an intent to “terminate the employment relationship as of a certain date,” and whether there are objective materials such as a notice of dismissal or HR documents. You should bear in mind that, if you unilaterally stop coming to work based solely on harsh expressions made in the course of a dispute over working hours or working conditions, there is a high risk that your conduct will instead be regarded as voluntary resignation or unauthorized absence. Even if there are circumstances that lead you to believe you have been dismissed, it is advisable, where possible, to confirm in writing—such as by text message or email—“whether it is correct to understand a particular measure by your company as a notice of dismissal,” and to整理 the facts up to the time you file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, expressions such as “Just quit” or “I will have you resign,” used during discussions on adjusting working hours or pointing out work attitude issues, can easily be misunderstood as coercion to resign or as a notice of dismissal. It is therefore preferable to calmly and clearly inform the worker in writing or by text message that “if the prescribed working hours are not observed, it will be difficult to maintain the employment contract.” Furthermore, if you do not actually intend to terminate the employment relationship, you should retain evidence—such as records showing that you encouraged the worker to continue reporting to work after the meeting, work schedules, and recordings—demonstrating that your true intention was to maintain the employment contract. This will be advantageous in terms of proof if the existence of a dismissal is later disputed before the Labor Relations Commission. By seeking advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you can review in advance your wording and procedures in situations where it may become an issue whether the separation was a dismissal or a resignation. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that it could not conclude that a dismissal by the employer existed merely because the worker, after being informed by the employer that “if you do not come to work at the prescribed working hours, we will have no choice but to have you resign,” unilaterally stopped coming to work on the assumption that he had been dismissed. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) The employer was in the process of recruiting employees and part-timers to work from 05:30 to 14:30 because Director Choi’s resignation was scheduled; (2) the employment contract stated working hours of 05:00 to 14:30; (3) Director Choi had worked early-morning shifts up to 28 February 2026, during which period the worker reported to work at 09:00, and even after Director Choi’s resignation, on 1 March 2026, the worker again reported at 09:00 and Director Hwang worked in his place; (4) the employer stated that if the working conditions did not suit the worker, they would have to find someone else and that Director Hwang could not continue to clock in on the worker’s behalf; (5) the worker claimed that Director Hwang orally notified him to quit, whereas the employer claimed that the worker voluntarily resigned because his request to change his working hours was not accepted, and the parties’ positions were thus in conflict; and (6) according to the recording, Director Hwang did say “Have [the employee] resign,” but this was a statement made in the context of explaining the need to comply with working hours and is difficult to regard as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss. Taking all of the above into consideration, the Commission found it difficult to view the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with the worker and therefore held that it could not definitively conclude that a dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Disciplinary Measure Level (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Statement to Resign Made in Telephone Call)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dispute over existence of dismissal (statement to “have the employee resign”), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Existence of Dismissal (Disciplinary Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disputes over the existence of dismissal (statement to “have the employee resign”) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disputes Over Existence of Dismissal (Statement to ‘Have the Employee Resign’).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article