This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of dismissal intention (construction site leave notice).” [Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of dismissal intention (construction site leave notice).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2862 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-10 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, employees working at a construction site claimed that, after completion of the construction works, the employer stopped assigning them work and thereby in effect unfairly dismissed them, and they filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the circumstances surrounding the leave notice following completion of the Osan Segyo site, as well as subsequent inquiries about assignment to other sites, to determine whether there had in substance been a dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where, after completion of construction works at a construction site, a “leave” notice was given and there was a period during which no work was assigned, it is possible to find that there existed an expression of intention to dismiss constituting unfair dismissal, even in the absence of any explicit notice from the employer. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that: on 9 March 2026, the employer had given prior notice to the employees that, as completion of the Osan Segyo site was scheduled, they would go on leave once the finishing work was completed; on 11 March, after the work ended, the employer again informed them that leave would commence; and from 21 March to 24 March, the employer repeatedly contacted the employees to inquire whether they could perform work at the fence and gate construction site at the “Meeting Plaza” in Gwangju, thereby continuously exploring opportunities for them to provide labor. In light of these facts, the panel held that it was difficult to find that there had been any explicit or implicit expression of intention to terminate the employment contracts, and that the situation amounted merely to a temporary leave due to completion of the works and the process of assigning the employees to other sites. Accordingly, the panel determined that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore the employees’ claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, you should be aware that unfair dismissal does not automatically arise simply because wages are not immediately paid or because the construction works at a site have ended. Where the employer continues to propose assignment to other sites or does not clearly express an intention to dismiss, you should carefully整理 the facts to determine whether the situation constitutes “notice of dismissal” or merely a leave/standby status, and then file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, whether the employer has clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract in text messages, recorded calls, notices, and similar communications will be key evidence. It is therefore important to systematically retain relevant materials in preparation for any future dispute. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when it is unavoidable to operate leave or standby due to completion of works or a reduction in workload, you should clearly explain in writing to employees whether the situation constitutes “leave” or “contract termination/redundancy dismissal.” In industries such as construction, where site transfers are frequent, it is helpful, for purposes of proving before the Labor Relations Commission that there was no intention to dismiss, to provide specific guidance on the possibility of assignment to other sites and to keep records of attempts to contact employees. Furthermore, where you actually proceed with redundancy or contract termination, you must strictly comply with the statutory requirements under the Labor Standards Act, such as the obligation to give written notice of dismissal and the conditions for redundancy dismissals, and you should refine your HR and labor management systems to prevent confusion between “leave/standby” and “dismissal.” (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... This is a case in which the Commission found that the alleged facts did not exist, namely: that the employer had notified the employees on 9 March 2026 that, as completion of the Osan Segyo site was scheduled, they would go on leave once the finishing work was completed; that on 11 March 2026, after the work ended, the employer again informed them that leave would commence; that in fact, from 21 March 2026 to 24 March 2026, the employer contacted the employees multiple times to inquire whether they could perform work at the fence and gate construction site at the “Meeting Plaza” construction site located in Gwangju Metropolitan City; and that there had been any explicit notice of dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ... This is a case in which the Commission found that the alleged facts did not exist, namely: that the employer had notified the employees on 9 March 2026 that, as completion of the Osan Segyo site was scheduled, they would go on leave once the finishing work was completed; that on 11 March 2026, after the work ended, the employer again informed them that leave would commence; that in fact, from 21 March 2026 to 24 March 2026, the employer contacted the employees multiple times to inquire whether they could perform work at the fence and gate construction site at the “Meeting Plaza” construction site located in Gwangju Metropolitan City; and that there had been any explicit notice of dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Justifiability of Disciplinary Dismissal (Discourtesy to Customers · Conflict with Colleagues)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Non-Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of dismissal intention (construction site leave notice), 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, “‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (KakaoTalk Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of dismissal intention (construction site leave notice) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Dismissal Intention (Construction Site Leave Notice)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article