[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (statement telling employee to resign).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1967 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … the site manager Hwang stated that if the working conditions did not fit, another person would have to be hired and that he could not continue to clock in on the worker’s behalf; (5) the worker claimed that Manager Hwang verbally notified him to “quit,” whereas the employer asserted that the worker voluntarily resigned after his request to change working hours was not accepted, so the parties’ assertions were in direct conflict; (6) according to the recording, Manager Hwang mentioned “have him resign,” but this was made in the context of instructing compliance with working hours, making it difficult to regard it as an expression of a definitive intent to dismiss… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal that was dismissed by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the worker claimed unfair dismissal based on the employer’s words and surrounding circumstances. The worker alleged that he heard statements to the effect of “quit” and “have him resign” from the site manager, while the employer argued that the worker chose to resign on his own after his proposed change in working hours was not accepted. The Labor Relations Commission reviewed the recording, the circumstances of the interview, the worker’s request to change working hours and the company’s position thereon, and other factors to determine whether there existed an “unfair dismissal” in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in the course of a conflict over changes to working hours where the site manager made statements such as “have him resign,” there was a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or whether it was merely the worker’s voluntary resignation or a mutual termination of employment. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that: the employer, when instructing the worker to comply with working hours, stated that if the working conditions did not fit, they would have no choice but to find another worker and that the site manager could not continue to clock in on the worker’s behalf; the worker claimed that the site manager verbally notified him to “quit,” whereas the employer claimed that the worker resigned on his own after his request to change working hours was not accepted, so the parties’ statements were in direct conflict; and the portion of the recording in which the site manager mentioned “have him resign” was made in the context of emphasizing compliance with working hours, making it difficult to view it as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss. In light of the above, the Commission held that it was difficult to conclude that the employer had made an explicit and definitive expression of intent to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship, such as stating “you are dismissed as of today.” The dismissal disposition in this case was therefore found not to constitute a unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the employer, i.e., a dismissal, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it is crucial to bear in mind that whether an actual dismissal occurred, or whether the worker expressed an intention to resign, is the key factor that determines whether a remedy for unfair dismissal will be granted. Even if words such as “quit” or “have him resign” were exchanged, it must be proven through specific circumstances (recordings, text messages, written notices, etc.) whether those words constituted a definitive notice of dismissal intended to terminate the employment contract (as in disciplinary or redundancy dismissals), or were merely a reprimand or warning. Accordingly, to assert unfair dismissal in similar situations, it is important to secure, as concretely as possible, objective materials that reveal the employer’s intent to dismiss—such as reports of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, written dismissal notices, personnel orders—as well as recordings or detailed notes of interviews and telephone conversations. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when adjusting a worker’s working hours, work location, or job duties, one must always keep in mind that using emotional expressions such as “quit” or “have him resign” may later escalate into a dispute over the existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. If there is in fact no intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is advisable to refrain as much as possible from using expressions that may be associated with dismissal during interviews, and to clearly document that the purpose was to demand improvement in work attitude or to request adjustments to working hours. Conversely, if the employer does intend to dismiss a worker, it must provide written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and systematically manage records such as grounds for discipline, performance evaluations, and histories of warnings and guidance so as to substantiate the “just cause” required under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. In unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes of this kind, it is practically important to accurately understand the burden of proof and legal principles regarding “whether a dismissal exists,” and, from the Labor Relations Commission stage, to organize the facts and evidence with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, as this can have a decisive impact on the resolution of future disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History … taking into account that the site manager Hwang stated that if the working conditions did not fit, another person would have to be hired and that he could not continue to clock in on the worker’s behalf; (5) the worker claimed that Manager Hwang verbally notified him to quit, whereas the employer asserted that the worker voluntarily resigned after his request to change working hours was not accepted, so the parties’ assertions were in direct conflict; (6) according to the recording, Manager Hwang mentioned “have him resign,” but this was made in the context of instructing compliance with working hours, making it difficult to view it as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss; in light of all of the above, it is difficult to regard the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with the worker, and it cannot be concluded that a dismissal exists. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … taking into account that the site manager Hwang stated that if the working conditions did not fit, another person would have to be hired and that he could not continue to clock in on the worker’s behalf; (5) the worker claimed that Manager Hwang verbally notified him to quit, whereas the employer asserted that the worker voluntarily resigned after his request to change working hours was not accepted, so the parties’ assertions were in direct conflict; (6) according to the recording, Manager Hwang mentioned “have him resign,” but this was made in the context of instructing compliance with working hours, making it difficult to view it as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss; in light of all of the above, it is difficult to regard the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with the worker, and it cannot be concluded that a dismissal exists. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (Disciplinary Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return for More Than Three Weeks)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dispute over existence of dismissal (statement telling employee to 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (Disciplinary Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disputes over the existence of dismissal (statement telling employee to resign) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disputes over Existence of Dismissal (Statement Telling Employee to Resign).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article