[Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of whether a dismissal existed (text messages · encouragement to report to work). Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Commission: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae1873 Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns whether an unfair dismissal occurred where, despite the employee’s continued expression of intent to keep working, the employee stopped reporting to work after text messages and a telephone call from the employer. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission found that the employer had violated the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and recognized the dismissal as unfair. This is a type of case for which Labor Law Firm Law& is frequently consulted. The employee, taking the view that reporting to work had in effect been blocked after a phone call with Team Leader Kim, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the text messages and phone call were merely communication and did not constitute an expression of intent to dismiss. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the employee has expressed a clear intent to continue working, but stops reporting to work after informal communications such as text messages and phone calls, does a dismissal in substance exist, and if it does, can it be effective even though the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal were not notified in writing?” In particular, the main issue was whether the surrounding circumstances—such as the employee’s text message asking “whether I may come to work tomorrow,” the employer’s text message encouraging the employee to report to work, and the payment of one day’s wages—served as key evidence in determining whether the employment relationship ended by the employee’s voluntary resignation or by the employer’s dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employee clearly expressed an intent to continue working by, among other things, sending a text message asking whether they could report to work the next day; that the employee stopped reporting to work after the phone call with Team Leader Kim and the employer did not take active steps to have the employee return; that the employer, without checking or genuinely encouraging the employee’s attendance, paid only one day’s wages and in effect wound up the relationship; and that, when the employee sent a text message announcing an intention to take legal action, the employer belatedly sent a text message to the effect that “this is not a dismissal” and encouraging the employee to return, but this could not readily be regarded as a genuine expression of intent to have the employee resume work. On this basis, the Commission determined that, in substance, the termination of the employment relationship was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. The dismissal in this case was also found to be an unfair dismissal with a serious procedural defect, irrespective of the mere existence of a dismissal, because the employer did not provide any written notice of the reasons for dismissal or the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is very important to preserve evidence in text messages, KakaoTalk messages, and notes of phone calls showing that you have expressed an intent to continue working. If you feel that it has become difficult to report to work any longer due to the employer’s words or conduct, you should record the specific circumstances in detail. Even if the company, without issuing a formal written notice of dismissal, in effect prevents you from reporting to work by saying things like “Don’t come in from tomorrow” or “Let’s wrap this up,” this can still constitute an unfair dismissal. A violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (failure to provide written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal) alone can be sufficient to invalidate the dismissal, so you should actively consider filing an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to terminate the employment relationship, you must prepare a written document (typically a dismissal notice) stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal and deliver or cause it to be delivered to the employee. You should recognize that the practice of winding up the relationship through text messages or verbal notice alone is highly risky. Regardless of whether it is a redundancy dismissal or a disciplinary dismissal, in any situation where the existence of a dismissal may be disputed, you should objectively document whether the employee wishes to continue working, whether you encouraged the employee to report to work, and how wages were handled. If you do not intend to dismiss the employee, you should also clearly communicate that fact in writing to reduce the potential for misunderstanding in future disputes. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have a precise understanding of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act regarding written notice and the legal principles for determining the substantive existence of a dismissal, and to have the practical ability to systematically organize how each circumstance—such as text messages, phone calls, and wage payments—bears on the determination of whether a dismissal occurred. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the Commission found that a dismissal had occurred and that it was unfair because the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. 3. Summary of Findings (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Whether a dismissal occurred ① The employee sent a text message asking whether they could report to work the next day, indicating an intent to continue working; ② the employee did not report to work the next day after the phone call with Team Leader Kim; ③ the employer, without checking or encouraging the employee’s attendance, paid one day’s wages; and ④ when the employee sent a text message announcing an intention to take legal action, the employer attempted to call and sent a text message to the effect that this was not a dismissal and encouraging the employee to report to work. In light of these facts, the Commission found that a dismissal had occurred and that the employer’s purported encouragement to return to work could not readily be regarded as genuine. b. Whether the dismissal was justified (reasons and procedure) The dismissal was unfair because the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (text messages · encouragement to report to work), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “Expression of Intent to Resign (Misunderstanding of Store Manager’s Remark)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (text messages · encouragement to report to work) on the “Existence of Dismissal (Text Messages · Encouragement to Report to Work) Related Decisions List” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article