This case concerns a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “misunderstanding as to the existence of dismissal (consultation on change of working conditions).” [Case Information] This case is a decision where, on the issue of “misunderstanding as to the existence of dismissal (consultation on change of working conditions),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed. Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1777 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-27 · Case outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee working at a hospital claimed to have been unfairly dismissed in the course of consultations over changes to working conditions and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission focused on whether the employer’s actions actually constituted a dismissal and examined the legal nature of the termination of the employment relationship. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether, in the course of consultations or proposals regarding changes to working conditions, the termination of the employment relationship can be evaluated as an unfair dismissal by the employer even in the absence of any express or implied manifestation of intent by the employer to that effect.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that there was no fact that, in the process of consulting on or proposing changes to working conditions, the employer had made, either expressly or impliedly, any definitive manifestation of intent to terminate the employment relationship; that the employee’s refusal to provide labor appeared to have been based on the employee’s own decision; and that the employer’s actions in filing a report of loss of employment insurance coverage and restricting access to the internal messenger were management measures taken for the purposes of settling wage payments and protecting the hospital’s internal systems and patient information. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and therefore it could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, it is first necessary to clearly identify whether there was a unilateral manifestation of intent by the employer to terminate the employment contract that would constitute a “dismissal.” Please note that mere consultation or proposals regarding changes to working conditions, or subsequent administrative/management measures such as reporting loss of employment insurance coverage or blocking access to internal systems, may not be immediately recognized as a dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when conducting consultations on changes to working conditions or making proposals for renewal of contracts, if there is no intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is important for dispute prevention to clearly record that fact in writing or in minutes of conversations. In addition, even when taking necessary measures such as reporting loss of employment insurance coverage or blocking system access, it is advisable to document the purpose and background of such measures and to explain to the employee that they are management measures separate and distinct from dismissal or redundancy. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to understand in advance the relevant legal principles distinguishing unfair dismissal from resignation, termination by mutual agreement, and consultations on changes to working conditions, and to organize the facts systematically in line with how the Labor Relations Commission determines the existence or non-existence of a dismissal. It is recommended that you establish an initial response strategy with advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... In the course of consultations or proposals regarding changes to working conditions, there was no fact that the employer made, either expressly or impliedly, any definitive manifestation of intent to terminate the employment relationship; the employee’s refusal to provide labor was based on the employee’s own decision; (4) the employer’s filing of a report of loss of employment insurance coverage and blocking of access to the internal messenger were measures taken for the purposes of wage payment and protection of the hospital’s internal systems and patient information; and (5) although it is true that, in the course of concluding the employment contract between the parties, certain proposals were made regarding changes to some working conditions, there is no basis to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by a unilateral manifestation of intent by the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that there was no dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... In the course of consultations or proposals regarding changes to working conditions, there was no fact that the employer made, either expressly or impliedly, any definitive manifestation of intent to terminate the employment relationship; the employee’s refusal to provide labor was based on the employee’s own decision; (4) the employer’s filing of a report of loss of employment insurance coverage and blocking of access to the internal messenger were measures taken for the purposes of wage payment and protection of the hospital’s internal systems and patient information; and (5) although it is true that, in the course of concluding the employment contract between the parties, certain proposals were made regarding changes to some working conditions, there is no basis to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by a unilateral manifestation of intent by the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that there was no dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made in Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: - Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, misunderstanding as to the existence of dismissal (consultation on change of working conditions), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Disciplinary Severity (Refusal to Submit Written Explanation · Poor Attendance),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to misunderstanding as to the existence of dismissal (consultation on change of working conditions) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstanding as to the Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Change of Working Conditions).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article