Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status (Head-Haul Truck Owners and Family Members in Headcount)” (Unfair Dismissal 6)
- Date2025/12/29 12:54
- Read 246
An unfair dismissal relief application concerning “employee status (head-haul truck owners and inclusion of family members in headcount)” was heard before a Labor Relations Commission, resulting in a decision in favor of the employer. We would like to share this decision and its legal implications. Through this case from the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, which concerns the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief system, you can examine the recurring issue that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice: how to count head-haul truck owners and family workers for headcount purposes. You can also confirm that the criteria for determining the number of regular employees will be of critical importance in future collective redundancy disputes as well.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was “whether seven head-haul truck owners, the employer’s mother, and a person referred to as the ‘Dongtan Representative’ could be regarded as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and, if so, whether the business should be deemed a workplace employing at least five regular employees and thus subject to the unfair dismissal relief system.”
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees; that the employer’s mother, as a person in a kinship relationship, was also difficult to regard as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; and that the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative was, in substance, closer to an employer or an independent business owner, so that his or her employee status was denied.
The employees argued that, for purposes of counting the number of employees, the head-haul truck owners, family members, and the Dongtan Representative should all be included, resulting in at least five regular employees, and further argued that, even if these individuals were excluded, the business would still fall within the scope of the Act depending on the method of calculating daily headcount.
Nevertheless, the panel held that, because the number of regular employees at the time of the dismissal was only four, the workplace did not fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal relief system, and therefore the application failed to meet the requirements for relief and was not subject to the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
This case strictly examined the employee status of head-haul truck owners, family workers, and nominal representatives when determining whether the prerequisite for an unfair dismissal relief application—“a workplace employing at least five regular employees”—was satisfied. In determining employee status, the focus is not on the form of the contract but on factors such as subordination to the employer, the nature of the remuneration, and whether the individual operates an independent business. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, access to the Labor Relations Commission’s relief procedures may be affected altogether. Accordingly, businesses operating with head-haul arrangements, consignment/entrustment structures, or family-run operations should carefully review their personnel structure and contract forms in advance.
2. Decision
Because it is difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees, the employer’s mother, and the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative, if these individuals are excluded and the number of regular employees is calculated, there were four employees during the one-month period prior to the date of dismissal, and thus the business does not fall within the scope of workplaces subject to unfair dismissal relief applications.
3. Gist of the Decision
Because it is difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees, the employer’s mother, and the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative, if these individuals are excluded and the number of regular employees is calculated, there were four employees during the one-month period prior to the date of dismissal, and thus the business does not fall within the scope of workplaces subject to unfair dismissal relief applications.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was “whether seven head-haul truck owners, the employer’s mother, and a person referred to as the ‘Dongtan Representative’ could be regarded as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and, if so, whether the business should be deemed a workplace employing at least five regular employees and thus subject to the unfair dismissal relief system.”
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees; that the employer’s mother, as a person in a kinship relationship, was also difficult to regard as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; and that the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative was, in substance, closer to an employer or an independent business owner, so that his or her employee status was denied.
The employees argued that, for purposes of counting the number of employees, the head-haul truck owners, family members, and the Dongtan Representative should all be included, resulting in at least five regular employees, and further argued that, even if these individuals were excluded, the business would still fall within the scope of the Act depending on the method of calculating daily headcount.
Nevertheless, the panel held that, because the number of regular employees at the time of the dismissal was only four, the workplace did not fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal relief system, and therefore the application failed to meet the requirements for relief and was not subject to the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
This case strictly examined the employee status of head-haul truck owners, family workers, and nominal representatives when determining whether the prerequisite for an unfair dismissal relief application—“a workplace employing at least five regular employees”—was satisfied. In determining employee status, the focus is not on the form of the contract but on factors such as subordination to the employer, the nature of the remuneration, and whether the individual operates an independent business. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, access to the Labor Relations Commission’s relief procedures may be affected altogether. Accordingly, businesses operating with head-haul arrangements, consignment/entrustment structures, or family-run operations should carefully review their personnel structure and contract forms in advance.
2. Decision
Because it is difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees, the employer’s mother, and the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative, if these individuals are excluded and the number of regular employees is calculated, there were four employees during the one-month period prior to the date of dismissal, and thus the business does not fall within the scope of workplaces subject to unfair dismissal relief applications.
3. Gist of the Decision
Because it is difficult to recognize the employee status of the seven head-haul truck owners claiming to be employees, the employer’s mother, and the person referred to as the Dongtan Representative, if these individuals are excluded and the number of regular employees is calculated, there were four employees during the one-month period prior to the date of dismissal, and thus the business does not fall within the scope of workplaces subject to unfair dismissal relief applications.
