[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “standing to sue (expiration of dispatch worker’s employment contract).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해1791 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-27 · Outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: (a) – 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a dispatch worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal in connection with the expiration of the fixed term of his/her employment contract. Both the dispatching employer and the user company were designated as employers. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on (i) who held the status of “employer” in relation to the dispatch worker, and (ii) whether the notice of expiration of the contract term constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where a dispatch worker employed under a fixed-term employment contract reaches the end of the contract period while in a state of unauthorized absence, can this be regarded as an unfair dismissal, and who has standing as the ‘employer’ (proper respondent) in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: the dispatching employer had entered into an employment contract with the worker and had exercised rights and obligations relating to that contract, such as paying wages; under the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, a dispatch worker, in principle, maintains an employment relationship with the dispatching employer while being subject to the direction and supervision of the user company; and under the Labor Standards Act and the statutes governing the Labor Relations Commission, an “employer” is the person who in substance directs and supervises the worker and bears the obligation to pay wages. In light of these factors, the panel held that Employer 2, the dispatching employer, was the employer of the worker in this case. In addition, the panel noted that the worker was hired as a dispatch worker under a fixed-term contract; the employment contract expressly listed “expiration of the contract term” as a ground for termination; the contract end date was specifically set as April 9, 2026; and the worker, having been absent without leave from March 29 to April 9, 2026, did not in fact provide labor to the employer when the contract period elapsed. Taking all of these circumstances into account, the panel held that the “dismissal” in this case must be regarded as the employment contract having ended by expiration of its term without any separate manifestation of intent to dismiss, and therefore that no unfair dismissal existed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) For a dispatch worker to assert unfair dismissal, it is essential first to identify clearly who is the counterparty to the employment contract and who in practice pays wages and exercises personnel authority. In the case of fixed-term or dispatch workers, simple expiration of the contract term is, in principle, not a dismissal but a contract termination. Accordingly, to contest unfair dismissal, additional legal analysis is required as to whether the worker had a legitimate expectation of contract renewal and whether the employer’s refusal to renew the contract was so lacking in rationality as to be unacceptable under social norms. In particular, where there is unauthorized absence or prolonged absence immediately before the contract expires, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will later evaluate the situation as “termination due to expiration of the term” rather than a “substantive dismissal.” Workers should therefore pay special attention to attendance management and to explaining the reasons for any absence. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) The status of “employer” in relation to a dispatch worker is determined not only by formal contractual relationships but also by who in practice hires, pays wages to, and manages the worker. It is therefore important for both the dispatching employer and the user company to clearly distinguish their respective roles and scopes of responsibility in contracts and in practice. When operating fixed-term or dispatch employment contracts, employers should specify in detail in the employment contract the contract period, grounds for termination, and whether and under what criteria the contract may be renewed. They should also document the timing of contract expiration and the procedures for giving notice of termination in order to reduce the risk of disputes. Furthermore, when attendance issues such as unauthorized absence arise, employers should record steps such as warnings, demands to return to work, and requests for written statements of explanation, so that they can later prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that the contract termination was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal. This decision reaffirms the scope of the “employer” in relation to dispatch workers and the legal principles governing the termination of fixed-term and dispatch contracts in the context of unfair dismissal. In similar cases, both workers and employers should bear in mind that clearly understanding and managing the contract structure, term, and grounds for termination in advance will greatly help in preventing and responding to disputes. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Standing of the Employers (Proper Party Status) Employer 2, the dispatching employer, is a corporation engaged in the dispatch business which entered into an employment contract with the worker and exercised rights and obligations relating to that contract, including payment of wages. Accordingly, Employer 2, the dispatching employer, is the worker’s employer. b. Whether a Dismissal Exists (i) The worker was hired as a dispatch worker under a fixed-term contract; (ii) the employment contract provides that expiration of the contract term is a ground for termination of the employment contract; (iii) the worker’s contract end date was April 9, 2026; and (iv) from March 29 to April 9, 2026, the worker was absent without leave and did not provide labor to the employer when the contract period … 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Standing of the Employers (Proper Party Status) Employer 2, the dispatching employer, is a corporation engaged in the dispatch business which entered into an employment contract with the worker and exercised rights and obligations relating to that contract, including payment of wages. Accordingly, Employer 2, the dispatching employer, is the worker’s employer. b. Whether a Dismissal Exists (i) The worker was hired as a dispatch worker under a fixed-term contract; (ii) the employment contract provides that expiration of the contract term is a ground for termination of the employment contract; (iii) the worker’s contract end date was April 9, 2026; and (iv) from March 29 to April 9, 2026, the worker was absent without leave and did not provide labor to the employer when the contract period … / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Application dismissed - “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, standing to sue (expiration of dispatch worker’s employment contract), unauthorized absence, 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, “‘Business Necessity (Closure of Branch Managed by Store Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to standing to sue (expiration of dispatch worker’s employment contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Standing to Sue (Expiration of Dispatch Worker’s Employment Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article