[Case Information] This case is a decision concerning the issue of “expectation right to employment succession (logistics center competitive bidding),” concluded under case number 2025BuHae1223. Decision date: 2025-11-04 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2025BuHae1223 Key issues in summary: (i) the employer came to operate the logistics center through competitive bidding and is unrelated to the previous contractor; (ii) there were no negotiations or consultations between the employer and the previous contractor regarding employment succession; (iii) the service contract between the employer and the principal (client company) contains no clause recommending or obligating employment succession; (iv) the employer’s rules of employment contain no provisions on employment succession; (v) rather than protection through an expectation right to employment succession, protection under the original employment contract, which had been maintained for more than three years… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where an employer newly awarded a contract, through competitive bidding, to operate a logistics center did not succeed to the employment of the existing contractor’s employees. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that he had an expectation right to employment succession. The Central Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer bore any responsibility and whether the employee had been unfairly dismissed. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the service provider has changed through competitive bidding, the Labor Relations Commission can recognize an expectation right to employment succession on the part of the employee, and further, whether the new employer is under any obligation to succeed to the employment. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case noted that the employer came to operate the logistics center through competitive bidding and that the employer and the previous contractor were unrelated; that there had been no negotiations or consultations at all between the employer and the previous contractor regarding employment succession; that the service contract between the employer and the principal (client company) contained no clause recommending or obligating employment succession; and that the employer’s rules of employment also contained no provisions regarding employment succession. In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to conclude that an expectation right to employment succession had been formed for the employee on the basis of “practice” or “contractual grounds.” In addition, it considered that protecting the employment relationship with the previous contractor under the original employment contract, which had been maintained for more than three years, appeared to be a more direct means of relief, and that the employee had voluntarily rejected the working conditions proposed by the employer. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the employer had no obligation to succeed to the employee’s employment and that no expectation right to employment succession could be recognized for the employee. Accordingly, there was no need to further examine the reasonableness of the grounds for refusing employment succession. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that an expectation right to employment succession is unlikely to be recognized merely because “the service continues” or “employment succession has taken place elsewhere in the past.” You should first carefully examine whether the service/outsourcing contract contains a clause recommending employment succession, whether there has in fact been a long-standing, repeated practice of employment succession between the outgoing and incoming contractors, and how you can exercise your rights under your existing employment contract (including seeking relief against the previous contractor). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer/company’s perspective, when workforce adjustments similar to redundancy dismissals are required in service-based businesses such as logistics centers, security, or cleaning, it is necessary to anticipate potential disputes over employment succession in advance. In particular, if you clearly manage whether the service contract contains any clause recommending or obligating employment succession, whether your rules of employment or collective agreements contain provisions on employment succession, and whether there have been any negotiations or agreements with the existing contractor regarding employment succession, you will be able to respond more stably to future disputes over unfair dismissal or employment succession with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that an expectation right to employment succession could not be recognized for the employee where the employer came to perform the service work through competitive bidding, did not engage in any negotiations or consultations with the previous contractor regarding employment succession, and the service contract with the principal contained no clause recommending or obligating employment succession. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) The employer came to operate the logistics center through competitive bidding and is unrelated to the previous contractor; (2) the employer and the previous contractor did not engage in any negotiations or consultations whatsoever regarding employment succession; (3) the service contract concluded between the employer and the principal (client company) contains no clause recommending or obligating employment succession; (4) the employer’s rules of employment contain no provisions on employment succession; (5) rather than protection through an expectation right to employment succession, protecting the employment relationship with the previous contractor under the original employment contract, which had been maintained for more than three years, appears to be a more direct means of relief; and (6) the employee rejected the working conditions proposed by the employer. In light of all of the above, the employer has no obligation to succeed to the employee’s employment, the employee cannot be recognized as having an expectation right to employment succession, and, as the employee refused employment succession, there is no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing employment succession. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” – Decision date: 2025-08-12 - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” – Decision date: 2025-12-31 - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Interest in Relief (Continuation of Employment Relationship)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation right to employment succession (logistics center competitive bidding), employment succession, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the expectation right to employment succession (logistics center competitive bidding) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expectation Right to Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article