[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the issue of “non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (site departure · request for reassignment)” was resolved in favor of the employer (application dismissed). Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1700 Key issue summary: (i) Rather than expressing an intention to continue working, the employee requested that the employment relationship be terminated by way of recommended resignation in order to secure an exception to the statutory limit on the number of workplace changes under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers, (ii) when the employee stopped reporting to the worksite, the employer urged the employee to come to work and visited the dormitory to discuss a possible team reassignment, thereby taking a series of steps to encourage the employee to return to work, (iii) although the employer filed an employment change report on the ground of termination of the employment contract due to the employee’s slowdown, this was ... 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, a foreign worker asked the employer to process a recommended resignation and attempted to change workplaces, and the question arose as to whether there had in fact been a dismissal by the employer. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision on this point. The Commission examined in a comprehensive manner the employee’s refusal to report to work, the employee’s intention to change workplaces, the employer’s efforts to encourage attendance, and the employer’s administrative employment change report and other surrounding circumstances, and concluded that no dismissal had taken place. Through this case, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to examine how the workplace change system under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers and the concept of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act actually come into conflict in practice, and by what criteria the Labor Relations Commission determines whether a dismissal exists. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee in this case was a foreign worker who experienced difficulties working in the existing work team and, in order to obtain recognition of an exception to the statutory limit on the number of workplace changes under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers, requested the employer to terminate the employment relationship in the form of a recommended resignation. Thereafter, the employee did not report to the worksite, while the employer, on the premise of maintaining the employment relationship, urged the employee to come to work and visited the dormitory to discuss the possibility of reassignment to another team. Meanwhile, the employer filed an employment change report on the ground of termination of the employment contract due to the employee’s slowdown and departure from the worksite, and in the course of inquiring with the administrative authority about how to process the “confirmation of reason for workplace change,” used certain expressions. The employee, relying on these circumstances, claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a foreign worker has requested processing as a recommended resignation and stopped reporting to work in order to change workplaces, an expression of intent to dismiss under the Labor Standards Act can be found solely on the basis of the employer’s administrative employment change report or related statements. In particular, as the employee claimed unfair dismissal and the employer argued that it had no intention to dismiss and that the employee had induced and requested termination of the employment relationship, the core issue became whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was dismissal, or resignation/termination by mutual agreement at the employee’s initiative. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the employer had, with the intention that the employee continue working, taken a series of steps to encourage attendance, such as urging the employee to come to work and visiting the dormitory to explain the possibility of reassignment to another work team; that the employee, on the contrary, had requested termination of the employment relationship by recommended resignation in order to secure an exception to the statutory limit on the number of workplace changes under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers; that the employment change report filed by the employer could be viewed merely as an ex post administrative measure following the employee’s departure from the worksite; that, even during the process of reviewing a possible reassignment, the employer only told the employee to “wait” until it could be confirmed 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 the statements made in the course of the employer’s telephone inquiry with the administrative authority regarding how to process the “confirmation of reason for workplace change” could not be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss the employee. Taking all of these circumstances together, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that the employer had made a unilateral expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship, as claimed by the employee. Accordingly, despite the employee’s assertions, the panel held that it was difficult to recognize the existence of a unilateral dismissal by the employer against the employee’s will, and therefore ruled that the case did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to secure specific circumstances that can support the existence of an expression of intent to dismiss, such as whether the employer explicitly stated, “You are to stop working as of today,” or otherwise completely blocked the employee from reporting to work. In particular, where a foreign worker has requested a recommended resignation or voluntarily stopped reporting to work in order to change workplaces, it may be very difficult to later claim that this amounted to a dismissal. Accordingly, it is advisable to clearly preserve the content and timing of any dismissal notice through text messages, recordings, messenger logs, and the like. In addition, when requesting a recommended resignation or discussing termination by mutual agreement, the outcome of any future dispute may differ depending on whether the employee’s intention was truly voluntary, or whether the resignation was merely formal in nature and, in substance, closer to a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Therefore, careful attention should be paid to managing the content of any written agreement and the circumstances under which it is prepared. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if there is in fact no intention to dismiss, it is necessary to take and document measures premised on maintaining the employment relationship—such as urging attendance, discussing reassignment of duties, and visiting the dormitory—and to secure written or messenger records so that these measures can be objectively verified. Conversely, if the employer does intend to terminate the employment relationship, it should not rely solely on oral statements, but should minimize disputes over the existence of dismissal by delivering a written dismissal notice that clearly sets out the reasons and effective date of the dismissal. Furthermore, administrative procedures relating to foreign workers—such as filing employment change reports and preparing confirmations of reasons for workplace change—can serve as important circumstances supporting the cause of termination of the employment relationship. These documents should therefore be completed in a manner consistent with the actual facts, and where the termination is not a dismissal, the type of termination (e.g., “recommended resignation at the employee’s request”) should be clearly distinguished and processed accordingly. Through decisions such as this, both employers and employees should clearly recognize the modes of termination of the employment relationship (dismissal, resignation, termination by mutual agreement, redundancy dismissal, etc.) and sufficiently consider in advance the legal effects that their expressions of intent will entail. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was determined that there had been no dismissal, on the ground that there were no circumstances sufficient to find that the employer had expressed an intention to dismiss. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (i) Rather than expressing an intention to continue working, the employee requested that the employment relationship be terminated by way of recommended resignation in order to secure an exception to the statutory limit on the number of workplace changes under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers; (ii) when the employee stopped reporting to the worksite, the employer urged the employee to come to work and visited the dormitory to conduct an interview regarding team reassignment, thereby taking a series of steps to encourage the employee to return to work; (iii) although the employer filed an employment change report on the ground of termination of the employment contract due to the employee’s slowdown, this can be viewed as an ex post administrative measure following the employee’s departure from the worksite; (iv) when the employee requested reassignment to another work team, the employer merely told the employee to wait until it could be confirmed whether reassignment was possible, and did not prohibit the employee from entering the worksite or express any intention to terminate the employment relationship; and (v) the statements made by the employer in the course of inquiring with an administrative official about how to process the “confirmation of reason for workplace change” cannot be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss the employee. Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission determined that there had been no dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Remedial Interest · Refusal to Re-employ (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Decision date: - · Case No.: Dismissal of Application [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of expression of intent to dismiss (site departure · 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Probationary Dismissal (Absence of Written Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of expression of intent to dismiss (site departure · request for reassignment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Departure · Request for Reassignment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article