[Case Information] This case is a decision concerning the issue of “existence of dismissal (on-site daily worker team leader’s remark),” concluded under case number 2026부해816. Decision date: 2026-10-13 · Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해816 Key issue summary: The worker fell under the category of a daily worker, and the employment relationship between the parties was, in substance, terminated in accordance with the terms of the “on-site daily worker employment contract,” such that no dismissal existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal relief application was handled by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission regarded the worker as an “on-site daily worker” and held that the employment contract had automatically terminated, and that there was no separate act of dismissal. The worker argued that the team leader’s remark, “Don’t come in from tomorrow,” constituted a dismissal. However, in line with similar decisions handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused on whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was a dismissal or an automatic termination. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case was whether, where a worker employed as an on-site daily worker hears from the team leader, at the time of contract expiry, a remark effectively prohibiting attendance, this can be viewed as an unfair dismissal, or whether it should instead be regarded as an automatic termination of a daily employment contract such that no dismissal exists at all. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the worker in substance worked as a daily worker under an “on-site daily worker employment contract,” that under the contractual structure the employment relationship between the parties appears to have automatically terminated pursuant to the terms of that daily employment contract, and that it is difficult to regard the team leader as occupying an employer’s status with authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker. Therefore, even assuming that the team leader did say, “Don’t come in from tomorrow,” this alone is insufficient to be deemed an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss. The panel further noted that the worker did not take any action premised on dismissal, such as confirming the fact of dismissal with the employer or raising an objection, and that the worker failed to prove the fact of dismissal through any other objective evidence. In light of all of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the “dismissal” that forms the premise of an unfair dismissal relief application could not be recognized. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s standpoint, it is important to bear in mind that whether one is a daily worker or can in substance be protected as a continuous worker is the starting point of any unfair dismissal dispute. In addition, where one claims to have been verbally notified of dismissal, it is crucial to secure evidence that can prove that a dismissal actually occurred, such as the specific content and context of the remark, the authority of the person making the remark, and subsequent objective materials such as text messages, KakaoTalk messages, or recordings. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when engaging daily workers, the employer should clearly define the daily employment structure—such as contract period, work units, and wage payment method—and manage actual operations accordingly, so that documentation and practice support the position that the employment relationship ended by automatic termination rather than dismissal. In addition, employers should train on-site managers such as team leaders and foremen not to speak carelessly about terminating employment relationships, and should establish procedures whereby, when it is necessary to terminate an employment relationship, the person with personnel authority gives notice in writing or in another clear manner. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that, because the worker fell under the category of a daily worker, the employment contract automatically terminated and no dismissal existed. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The worker fell under the category of a daily worker, and the employment relationship between the parties was, in substance, terminated in accordance with the terms of the “on-site daily worker employment contract,” such that no dismissal existed. Even assuming that the company’s team leader, Mr. Kim O-il, said to the worker, “(Director Cho said) Don’t come in from tomorrow,” thereby conveying the purport that the worker should not report to work, the team leader did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor did he occupy an employer’s status that would allow him to exercise such authority. The worker did not raise any objection, such as confirming the facts of dismissal with the employer, and failed to objectively prove the fact of dismissal by any other means. In light of all of these circumstances, it was determined that no dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (on-site daily worker team leader’s remark), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Other Institution’s Service Contract)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (on-site daily worker team leader’s remark) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (On-Site Daily Worker Team Leader’s Remark) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article