Corporate trends / Performance record
Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Educational Public Officials) in Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 509)
- Date2026/07/01 04:05
- Read 22
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae275 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Under Article 7 of the Rules of Employment, “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed by a school as a fixed-term educational public official filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the employment contract expired and was not renewed. The worker argued that, based on the provisions on conversion to an indefinite-term contract in the Rules of Employment and his/her work history, he/she had an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed or that he/she would be converted to an indefinite-term contract.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term educational public official performing regular and continuous duties, in circumstances where the Rules of Employment contain provisions on conversion to an indefinite-term contract, can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an indefinite-term contract, even when the matter has never actually been submitted as an agenda item to the Personnel Committee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee.” However, during the worker’s period of employment, the question of conversion to an indefinite-term contract was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee; there were no prior cases, or only extremely limited cases, of conversion to indefinite-term contracts in the relevant job category; and, in the process of concluding and renewing the employment contracts, the contract term was clearly specified and there were circumstances from which the worker could recognize that the hiring was temporary.
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the worker could legitimately expect renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an indefinite-term contract solely on the basis of the Rules of Employment.
The panel determined that the termination in this case should be regarded as the expiration of the contract term, and that, since no expectation of renewal could be recognized for the worker, it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Fixed-term workers should be aware that the mere presence of a discretionary phrase such as “may be converted to an indefinite-term contract” in the Rules of Employment or guidelines does not, by itself, give rise to an expectation of renewal. Objective circumstances such as actual cases of submission to the Personnel Committee and conversion, a practice of repeated renewals, and specific promises or notices regarding conversion must also be present to lend weight to a claim of expectation of renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Where school corporations, public institutions, and other employers operate fixed-term educational public officials as temporary substitute personnel, they should clearly state in recruitment announcements and employment contracts that the position is for substitute/temporary hiring, as well as the contract term and criteria for renewal. In addition, where the Rules of Employment contain provisions on conversion to indefinite-term contracts, the specific targets, requirements, and procedures should be clearly defined, and the actual operation of the Personnel Committee and conversion cases should be managed consistently, so as to prevent unnecessary disputes over expectations of renewal and conflicts over alleged unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee,” there is no dispute between the parties that, during the worker’s period of employment, the matter was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee. According to the transcript submitted as Evidence No. 2, on December 24, 2025, the worker said to Mr. Jeong, the Head of Administration, “While I was organizing my desk yesterday, I found the second employment contract in this case…”
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Although Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee,” there is no dispute between the parties that, during the worker’s period of employment, the matter was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee. According to the transcript submitted as Evidence No. 2, on December 24, 2025, the worker said to Mr. Jeong, the Head of Administration, “While I was organizing my desk yesterday, I found the second employment contract in this case…” /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Remedial Interest (Standby Order Following Workplace Bullying)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Educational Public Officials).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae275 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Under Article 7 of the Rules of Employment, “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed by a school as a fixed-term educational public official filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the employment contract expired and was not renewed. The worker argued that, based on the provisions on conversion to an indefinite-term contract in the Rules of Employment and his/her work history, he/she had an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed or that he/she would be converted to an indefinite-term contract.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term educational public official performing regular and continuous duties, in circumstances where the Rules of Employment contain provisions on conversion to an indefinite-term contract, can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an indefinite-term contract, even when the matter has never actually been submitted as an agenda item to the Personnel Committee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee.” However, during the worker’s period of employment, the question of conversion to an indefinite-term contract was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee; there were no prior cases, or only extremely limited cases, of conversion to indefinite-term contracts in the relevant job category; and, in the process of concluding and renewing the employment contracts, the contract term was clearly specified and there were circumstances from which the worker could recognize that the hiring was temporary.
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the worker could legitimately expect renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an indefinite-term contract solely on the basis of the Rules of Employment.
The panel determined that the termination in this case should be regarded as the expiration of the contract term, and that, since no expectation of renewal could be recognized for the worker, it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Fixed-term workers should be aware that the mere presence of a discretionary phrase such as “may be converted to an indefinite-term contract” in the Rules of Employment or guidelines does not, by itself, give rise to an expectation of renewal. Objective circumstances such as actual cases of submission to the Personnel Committee and conversion, a practice of repeated renewals, and specific promises or notices regarding conversion must also be present to lend weight to a claim of expectation of renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Where school corporations, public institutions, and other employers operate fixed-term educational public officials as temporary substitute personnel, they should clearly state in recruitment announcements and employment contracts that the position is for substitute/temporary hiring, as well as the contract term and criteria for renewal. In addition, where the Rules of Employment contain provisions on conversion to indefinite-term contracts, the specific targets, requirements, and procedures should be clearly defined, and the actual operation of the Personnel Committee and conversion cases should be managed consistently, so as to prevent unnecessary disputes over expectations of renewal and conflicts over alleged unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee,” there is no dispute between the parties that, during the worker’s period of employment, the matter was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee. According to the transcript submitted as Evidence No. 2, on December 24, 2025, the worker said to Mr. Jeong, the Head of Administration, “While I was organizing my desk yesterday, I found the second employment contract in this case…”
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Although Article 7 of the Rules of Employment provides that “The school principal may convert a fixed-term educational public official who has engaged in regular and continuous work (work that continues for at least 9 months per year and is expected to continue for at least 2 more years) for 2 years or more to an indefinite-term contract worker after going through a conversion evaluation and deliberation and resolution by the Personnel Committee,” there is no dispute between the parties that, during the worker’s period of employment, the matter was never adopted as an agenda item by the Personnel Committee. According to the transcript submitted as Evidence No. 2, on December 24, 2025, the worker said to Mr. Jeong, the Head of Administration, “While I was organizing my desk yesterday, I found the second employment contract in this case…” /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Remedial Interest (Standby Order Following Workplace Bullying)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of expectation of renewal (substitute educational public officials) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Expectation of Renewal (Substitute Educational Public Officials).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
