Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Contractor)” (Unfair Dismissal 546)
- Date2026/07/15 04:19
- Read 23
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of employment succession (change of contractor).”
Decision Body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae83 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose where, in the course of a change of contractor, an employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he/she should naturally have been succeeded and hired by the new contractor. The Labor Relations Commission examined the employee’s work history, the contents of the service contract, and the actual hiring process, and focused its analysis on whether there existed a practice of employment succession and whether an expectation right to succession could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the contractor changes, an employee can be recognized as having an expectation right to employment succession with the new contractor even in the absence of any prior practice of employment succession or express agreement, and, on that basis, whether the matter can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, during the period in which the employee worked at the employer’s business, no practice was confirmed whereby existing employees were naturally succeeded when the contractor changed; that the service contract between the employer and the contractor did not impose any obligation of comprehensive employment succession of employees belonging to the previous contractor; and that, although the employer selectively hired some personnel, it was difficult to view this as operating a comprehensive succession procedure.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that any relationship of trust or legitimate expectation had been formed on the part of the employee that “his/her employment would naturally be succeeded.” Furthermore, taking into account that the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the possibility that employment succession might be refused, raised no particular objection, and that the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement or contract premised on a business transfer or comprehensive employment succession,
the panel held that the dismissal disposition in this case was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, one should not vaguely assume, whenever the contractor changes, that “I have continued working in the past, so I will naturally be succeeded this time as well.” It is necessary to specifically confirm whether there is an actual practice of employment succession, whether the service contract or public notices contain language regarding succession, and whether there are any explicit promises from the employer’s side. In addition, if an employee has been notified in advance of an intention to refuse employment succession but raises no objection and only later claims unfair dismissal, it may be difficult to have the formation of an expectation right recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the perspective of employers and contractors, it is advisable to clearly state in the service contract that “there will be no comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor,” or to clearly set out re-hiring criteria, and to clearly notify existing employees of whether they will be succeeded through wording in recruitment announcements and guidance during the actual hiring process. Where only some personnel are selectively hired, employers should avoid any blanket succession or automatic hiring methods that could be misconstrued as a practice of employment succession at the existing workplace, and should document the selection criteria and procedures so that they can substantiate the legitimacy of their actions before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts in the future.
This Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that the recognition of an “expectation right to employment succession” can be a key issue in unfair dismissal disputes, and suggests that it is necessary to carefully prepare HR and labor-management structures involving contracting arrangements, collective redundancies, and job transfers through prior consultation with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded. It is also difficult to view the employer’s hiring of some employees as the implementation of a comprehensive employment succession procedure; the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the refusal of employment succession, raised no particular objection; and the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement concerning business transfer or employment succession…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded. It is also difficult to view the employer’s hiring of some employees as the implementation of a comprehensive employment succession procedure; the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the refusal of employment succession, raised no particular objection; and the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement concerning business transfer or employment succession… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of employment succession (change of contractor), 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 on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of employment succession (change of contractor) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Contractor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision Body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae83 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose where, in the course of a change of contractor, an employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he/she should naturally have been succeeded and hired by the new contractor. The Labor Relations Commission examined the employee’s work history, the contents of the service contract, and the actual hiring process, and focused its analysis on whether there existed a practice of employment succession and whether an expectation right to succession could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the contractor changes, an employee can be recognized as having an expectation right to employment succession with the new contractor even in the absence of any prior practice of employment succession or express agreement, and, on that basis, whether the matter can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, during the period in which the employee worked at the employer’s business, no practice was confirmed whereby existing employees were naturally succeeded when the contractor changed; that the service contract between the employer and the contractor did not impose any obligation of comprehensive employment succession of employees belonging to the previous contractor; and that, although the employer selectively hired some personnel, it was difficult to view this as operating a comprehensive succession procedure.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that any relationship of trust or legitimate expectation had been formed on the part of the employee that “his/her employment would naturally be succeeded.” Furthermore, taking into account that the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the possibility that employment succession might be refused, raised no particular objection, and that the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement or contract premised on a business transfer or comprehensive employment succession,
the panel held that the dismissal disposition in this case was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, one should not vaguely assume, whenever the contractor changes, that “I have continued working in the past, so I will naturally be succeeded this time as well.” It is necessary to specifically confirm whether there is an actual practice of employment succession, whether the service contract or public notices contain language regarding succession, and whether there are any explicit promises from the employer’s side. In addition, if an employee has been notified in advance of an intention to refuse employment succession but raises no objection and only later claims unfair dismissal, it may be difficult to have the formation of an expectation right recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the perspective of employers and contractors, it is advisable to clearly state in the service contract that “there will be no comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor,” or to clearly set out re-hiring criteria, and to clearly notify existing employees of whether they will be succeeded through wording in recruitment announcements and guidance during the actual hiring process. Where only some personnel are selectively hired, employers should avoid any blanket succession or automatic hiring methods that could be misconstrued as a practice of employment succession at the existing workplace, and should document the selection criteria and procedures so that they can substantiate the legitimacy of their actions before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts in the future.
This Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that the recognition of an “expectation right to employment succession” can be a key issue in unfair dismissal disputes, and suggests that it is necessary to carefully prepare HR and labor-management structures involving contracting arrangements, collective redundancies, and job transfers through prior consultation with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded. It is also difficult to view the employer’s hiring of some employees as the implementation of a comprehensive employment succession procedure; the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the refusal of employment succession, raised no particular objection; and the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement concerning business transfer or employment succession…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the absence of any confirmed practice of employment succession upon a change of contractor during the employee’s period of service, and the absence of any clause in the service contract between the employer and the contractor providing for comprehensive employment succession of employees of the previous contractor, it is difficult to find that a relationship of trust was formed under which the employee could reasonably believe that his/her employment would naturally be succeeded. It is also difficult to view the employer’s hiring of some employees as the implementation of a comprehensive employment succession procedure; the employee, despite having been made aware in advance of the refusal of employment succession, raised no particular objection; and the employer, as an independent legal entity separate from the previous contractor, had not entered into any separate agreement concerning business transfer or employment succession… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of employment succession (change of contractor), 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 on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of employment succession (change of contractor) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Contractor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
