[Case Information] This case concerns a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (leaving the worksite · request for reassignment).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해1700 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting unfair dismissal based on the employer’s attitude and the employer’s report of loss of employment insurance coverage. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether there was, in fact, any expression of intent to dismiss, taking into account the employer’s repeated encouragement to return to work, the process of reviewing possible reassignment, and the content of telephone calls with the administrative authority. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employee left the worksite and requested reassignment to another work team, the employer’s report of a change in employment status or its communications with the administrative authority could be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss the employee. In other words, the question was whether, even in the absence of formal “redundancy” or disciplinary dismissal procedures, the totality of the employer’s conduct could nonetheless amount to an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to return to work even after the employee’s work-to-rule conduct and departure from the worksite; even if the employer reported a change in employment status to the authorities on the ground that the employment contract had been terminated due to the employee’s work-to-rule conduct, such report was nothing more than a post hoc administrative measure reflecting the already existing state of the employee having left the worksite; when the employee requested reassignment to another work team, the employer merely instructed the employee to wait until it could confirm whether reassignment was possible, and did not prohibit the employee from entering the worksite or expressly state any intention to terminate the employment relationship; and that statements made in the course of the employer’s inquiry with an administrative official on how to process a “Statement of Reasons for Change of Workplace” related only to administrative procedures and could not readily be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss that had been communicated to the employee. Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to find that there had been any express or implied expression of intent to dismiss on the part of the employer in this case, and that the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be upheld. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to prove when, through whom, and in what terms the employer actually conveyed its intention to terminate the employment relationship. Please bear in mind that a mere report of loss of employment insurance coverage, internal administrative processing within the company, or conversations with third parties will rarely be recognized as an expression of intent to dismiss. In addition, employees should avoid conduct such as leaving the worksite or engaging in work-to-rule that could provide the employer with grounds to terminate the contract, and should ensure that any requests or discussions regarding reassignment are preserved in objective records such as text messages, messaging apps, or emails. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if there is no actual intention to dismiss, it is advisable to communicate matters such as encouragement to return to work, review of reassignment, and instructions to remain on standby to the employee in clear language and to keep systematic records of such communications. When handling administrative procedures such as filing a report of loss of insured status under employment insurance, the grounds should be stated accurately, and it is desirable to add explanations so that any expressions used in telephone calls or inquiries with administrative authorities are not distorted when conveyed to the employee. Furthermore, whether in cases of redundancy or disciplinary dismissal, when an actual dismissal is to be carried out, the procedures—such as written notice of dismissal—should be clearly followed so that the very existence of a dismissal is not later disputed. In this type of case, the key implication for both employees and employers is that the legal analysis in unfair dismissal disputes centers on whether there exists a “substantive expression of intent to dismiss.” It is advisable to consult with specialists experienced in unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to carefully structure, from the Labor Relations Commission stage onward, the issues of whether there was an expression of intent to dismiss and how it will be proven. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... including a series of encouragements to return to work; (3) although the employer reported a change in employment status on the ground that the employment contract had been terminated due to the employee’s work-to-rule conduct, this can be viewed as a post hoc administrative measure following the employee’s departure from the worksite; (4) when the employee requested reassignment to another work team, the employer merely told the employee to wait until it could confirm whether reassignment was possible, and did not prohibit the employee from entering the worksite or express any intention to terminate the employment relationship; and (5) statements made by the employer in the course of inquiring with an administrative official about how to process a “Statement of Reasons for Change of Workplace” cannot be regarded as an expression of intent toward the employee. Taking all of these into account, the Commission found that there was no such intent. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... including a series of encouragements to return to work; (3) although the employer reported a change in employment status on the ground that the employment contract had been terminated due to the employee’s work-to-rule conduct, this can be viewed as a post hoc administrative measure following the employee’s departure from the worksite; (4) when the employee requested reassignment to another work team, the employer merely told the employee to wait until it could confirm whether reassignment was possible, and did not prohibit the employee from entering the worksite or express any intention to terminate the employment relationship; and (5) statements made by the employer in the course of inquiring with an administrative official about how to process a “Statement of Reasons for Change of Workplace” cannot be regarded as an expression of intent toward the employee. Taking all of these into account, the Commission found that there was no such intent. / [Further Related Decisions] - “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Dismissal During Probation (Absence of Written Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case No.: Application Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of expression of intent to dismiss (leaving the worksite · request for reassignment), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Dismissal During Probation (Absence of Written Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (leaving the worksite · request for reassignment) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Leaving the Worksite · Request for Reassignment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article