[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “lack of employer standing (pre-offer-of-employment stage).” Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해734 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-27 · Outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issue: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the worker claimed that he had in substance been hired at a stage prior to being assigned to a construction site and sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the two entities identified as employers in this case were in fact business owners who actually used the worker’s labor, and whether the existence of a finalized employment contract or a firm offer of employment (hiring decision) was a necessary premise. The Commission acknowledged that there had been preliminary procedures such as requests for copies of an ID card, submission of a safety training certificate, and issuance of a QR code for site access. However, it closely examined whether these measures alone were sufficient to deem that an employment contract had been concluded or that a definitive offer of employment had been made. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, “prior to the commencement of actual work, the mere request for submission of hiring-related documents and issuance of an access QR code is sufficient to establish an employment contract or an offer of employment, thereby conferring ‘employer standing’ on the alleged employer as the proper respondent to an order for remedy for unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning With respect to who the employer was, the panel held that there was insufficient proof of a substantive relationship of subordination in which the alleged employer directed and supervised the worker and paid wages, or of the conclusion of an express or implied employment contract between the worker and the alleged employer. The panel stated that an employer must either conclude an employment contract with the worker or, at a minimum, express an intention to make an offer of employment such as a probationary or training period premised on formal hiring. In this case, however, the alleged employer merely requested hiring-related documents such as a copy of the ID card and a safety training certificate and issued a QR code for site access. In light of this, and given that there was no evidence of a wage agreement, designation of working hours or workplace, specific work instructions, or other materials from which the alleged employer could be regarded as the substantive employer, the panel found that the alleged employer in this case did not have employer standing. Accordingly, there was no need to further examine whether a dismissal existed or whether any dismissal was justified. The panel dismissed the worker’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the request for submission of an ID card copy and issuance of a QR code alone could not be regarded as an expression of intent to make a definitive offer of employment or to accept an employment contract. Ultimately, this dismissal action can be summarized as a case in which the Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the prerequisite elements of employer standing and the formation of an employment contract, and therefore did not proceed to the substantive stage of determining whether the dismissal was unfair, resulting in dismissal of the application. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it must be clearly understood that, in order to contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, one must first prove “who was my employer” and “whether a substantive employment contract or offer of employment existed.” Preliminary acts such as submission of an ID card copy, completion of safety training, and issuance of an access card or QR code do not automatically give rise to an employment contract or an offer of employment. It is therefore important to secure, to the greatest extent possible, evidence such as the actual start date of work, the specific agreed terms and conditions of employment (wages, working hours, job duties, etc.), and text messages, messenger records, emails, and other materials containing an expression of intent confirming hiring. In addition, if, during the hiring process, you receive specific promises such as “Start work from [a certain date]” or “Your wage will be [a certain amount],” you should ensure that these are preserved as objective evidence, such as text messages, messenger screenshots, or audio recordings. Only then can you obtain recognition from the Labor Relations Commission of employer standing and the formation of an employment relationship, and proceed to the subsequent stage of determining whether the dismissal was unfair. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s side, even when conducting preparatory acts at the pre-hiring stage—such as collecting documents, providing safety training, and issuing access cards—it is necessary to clearly distinguish procedures and wording so as not to create any misunderstanding that an employment contract has been concluded or that a definitive offer of employment has been made. For example, it is advisable to state in writing or in guidance materials that “employment is not finalized until a notice of final acceptance is given,” and to refrain from having workers sign employment contracts or using language indicating confirmed hiring before the terms and conditions of employment and the start date are finalized. Furthermore, because the entity that actually uses the worker’s labor, exercises direction and supervision, and pays wages is the standard for determining employer standing at the Labor Relations Commission, companies that utilize contracting, outsourcing, or subcontracting structures should align their contractual arrangements and HR/payroll systems with the entity that in substance performs the employer role. By doing so, employers can reduce unnecessary disputes over employer status and clarify the scope of responsibility in the event of collective redundancies or unfair dismissal disputes. By consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and reviewing hiring-stage document templates, guidance materials, and contracting/outsourcing agreements, employers can significantly reduce future legal risks related to employer standing and the formation of employment relationships in unfair dismissal disputes before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) As there is insufficient proof to regard the alleged Employers 1 and 2 as the entities that in substance used the worker, they cannot be viewed as the parties obligated to comply with a remedy order. Since the alleged employers in this case do not have employer standing, there is no need to further examine whether a dismissal existed or whether any dismissal was justified. (b) The mere request for hiring-related documents such as a copy of an ID card and a safety training certificate, and the issuance of a site access QR code, cannot be regarded as the employer’s expression of intent to make a definitive offer of employment to the worker or to accept an employment contract. 3. Summary of Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) As there is insufficient proof to regard the alleged Employers 1 and 2 as the entities that in substance used the worker, they cannot be viewed as the parties obligated to comply with a remedy order. Since the alleged employers in this case do not have employer standing, there is no need to further examine whether a dismissal existed or whether any dismissal was justified. (b) The mere request for hiring-related documents such as a copy of an ID card and a safety training certificate, and the issuance of a site access QR code, cannot be regarded as the employer’s expression of intent to make a definitive offer of employment to the worker or to accept an employment contract. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employer Standing (Construction Supervision Service Provider · Project Owner)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, lack of employer standing (pre-offer-of-employment stage), 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 ‘Employer Standing (Construction Supervision Service Provider · Project Owner)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to lack of employer standing (pre-offer-of-employment stage) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Lack of Employer Standing (Pre-Offer-of-Employment Stage).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article