[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “notification of dismissal disputed (text message).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1288 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application 2026-07-27 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: In this case, the employee in 2026 … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee working at a hospital who received a text message from the employer stating, “It seems that things are not working out well with the hospital’s circumstances, so I would like to ask you to wrap up your work. I will settle your wages as quickly as possible and send them to you.” The employee claimed this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee viewed the text as a final notice of dismissal, whereas the employer argued that it was merely an inquiry about the employee’s intention to resign and that, even after that, the employer withdrew any intention to dismiss and repeatedly requested the employee to continue coming to work, but the employee refused to do so. In this case before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. In determining whether unfair dismissal was established, the meaning of the text message and the subsequent conduct of the parties were the central points of review. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, when an employer uses expressions such as “I would like to ask you to wrap up your work” in a text message, this constitutes a definitive expression of intent to dismiss, or whether it is merely an inquiry or suggestion regarding resignation. Furthermore, in a situation where the employer effectively retracts the content of the text and requests the employee to continue coming to work, the question arises whether the employee can refuse this and still claim unfair dismissal—i.e., whether this falls within the scope of “unfair dismissal” protected by the Labor Relations Commission, or whether it is closer to a unilateral refusal by the employee to provide labor. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employer used a suggestive/solicitous expression, “I would like to ask you to wrap up your work,” in the message sent to the employee; that, in the overall context of the text, it appeared to be an attempt to sound out or encourage the employee’s intention to resign rather than a unilateral notice of dismissal; and that when the employee responded along the lines of “This is an unfair dismissal, so I will accept it if you pay one month’s wages as a consolation payment,” the employer immediately withdrew this and repeatedly requested the employee to report to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found it difficult to regard the text message in this case as a definitive notice of dismissal. It also found that, despite the employer’s withdrawal of any intention to dismiss and its clear desire to maintain the employment relationship, the employee continued to refuse the employer’s subsequent requests to report to work. Considering the overall course of events, the Commission held that the primary cause of the termination of the employment relationship lay not in any unfair dismissal by the employer, but in the employee’s refusal to report to work. On this basis, the Commission did not accept the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal. Ultimately, the Commission held that the “dismissal measure” in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if expressions received by text, KakaoTalk, etc. may feel like dismissal, you should be aware that if the employer promptly and clearly corrects this by stating, “I did not mean for you to quit; please continue to come to work,” it may be difficult to have it recognized as unfair dismissal. In particular, if the employer withdraws any intention to dismiss and shows an attitude of wanting to maintain the employment contract, yet the employee refuses to report to work, there is a risk that this will instead be evaluated as a refusal by the employee to provide labor. In similar situations, you should preserve the text messages, subsequent conversations, and any requests to report to work, and, rather than responding emotionally, organize your position in writing or through recorded conversations. If necessary, consult with the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important that any expression of intent relating to termination of employment be clearly communicated in writing using terms such as “dismissal” or “the employment contract will be terminated as of [date].” Using ambiguous, suggestive, or solicitous expressions by text message can become the starting point for disputes and should be avoided. If a message is sent in the heat of the moment and there is a possibility it may be misunderstood as expressing an intention to dismiss, the employer should immediately send a corrective message and clearly record that the actual intention is for the employee to continue working. In addition, when an employee claims unfair dismissal and demands consolation money, damages for mental distress, etc., if the employer proceeds with settlement discussions on an ad hoc basis without carefully reviewing the legal risks, the dispute may escalate. Employers should thoroughly review similar precedents and legal principles relating to collective redundancies and unfair dismissal, and, where necessary, establish a response strategy with advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee in this case argued that, on 8 March 2026, the employer definitively notified dismissal by sending a text message stating that it seemed that things were not working out well with the hospital’s circumstances, so the employer would like to ask the employee to wrap up his/her work, and that wages would be settled and sent as quickly as possible. However, the text sent by the employer to the employee was a suggestive/solicitous sentence that appears to have been inquiring about the employee’s intention to resign. When the employee, upon receiving this text, responded that this was an unfair dismissal and that he/she would accept it if one month’s wages were paid as consolation money, the employer withdrew this and requested the employee to report to work. Thereafter, the employee continued to refuse the employer’s repeated requests to report to work, etc. … 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee in this case argued that, on 8 March 2026, the employer definitively notified dismissal by sending a text message stating that it seemed that things were not working out well with the hospital’s circumstances, so the employer would like to ask the employee to wrap up his/her work, and that wages would be settled and sent as quickly as possible. However, the text sent by the employer to the employee was a suggestive/solicitous sentence that appears to have been inquiring about the employee’s intention to resign. When the employee, upon receiving this text, responded that this was an unfair dismissal and that he/she would accept it if one month’s wages were paid as consolation money, the employer withdrew this and requested the employee to report to work. Thereafter, the employee continued to refuse the employer’s repeated requests to report to work, etc. … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Standing to Sue (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract of Dispatched Worker)” - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, notification of dismissal disputed (text message), 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 Case Concerning Standing to Sue (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract of Dispatched Worker),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to notification of dismissal disputed (text message) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Notification of Dismissal Disputed (Text Message).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article