Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Employee Status (Text Message Hiring Negotiation) in Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 552)
- Date2026/07/18 04:08
- Read 18
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae988 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) The employer never expressed consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to believe the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker claimed that an employment contract had been finalized based on working conditions he proposed via text message, and that he was subsequently unfairly dismissed, for which he sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission. The employer argued that the text messages were nothing more than part of a negotiation process, that no actual employment relationship had ever been formed, and therefore an unfair dismissal could not exist in the first place.
The worker asserted that a regular employment contract had been concluded on the conditions of working 09:30–21:30, a monthly salary of KRW 3.3 million, and an employment period of at least one year. The employer responded that it had never expressly accepted these conditions.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where working conditions are unilaterally proposed by text message and there is no express or implied consent from the employer, and there has been no actual reporting for work, no direction and supervision, and no wage agreement, can employee status under the Labor Standards Act be recognized so that the case falls within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer expressed consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); that the business begins preparations for opening from 10:00, so there was no reasonable basis for the worker to start work from 09:30; and that, given that all employees other than the store manager are part-time workers, the claim of a 12-hour workday was significantly inconsistent with the actual conditions of the workplace.
Taking into account that the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from the general wage structure of existing employees, and that there were no circumstances confirming that the worker had received specific work instructions from the employer or had actually provided work at the business under a subordinate relationship, the Commission determined that it was difficult to recognize employee status under the Labor Standards Act.
The Commission thus viewed that, since the establishment of an employment relationship could not be recognized from the outset, the requirements for “unfair dismissal” were not met, and on that basis the worker’s application for remedy was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure a broad range of evidence supporting employee status, not only text or messenger conversations but also actual attendance at work, the employer’s designation of working hours and workplace, specific work instructions, wage agreements and payment methods, and so on. In particular, where the worker claims working conditions that are significantly different from the usual conditions at the workplace, if the worker fails to secure the employer’s express consent to such conditions (through documents, recordings, messenger confirmations, etc.), it will be difficult to have credibility recognized before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary at the hiring negotiation stage to clearly set out specific working conditions in writing (employment contract, hiring confirmation, etc.), and to refine wording and procedures so that messages or oral proposals made before final agreement are not misunderstood as confirmation of hiring. In workplaces with many part-time workers, standard working hours, hourly wage/salary structures, and number of working days should be managed in a uniform manner so that objective benchmarks can be presented later in response to claims that there was a full-time or long-hours employment contract.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employer did not express consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to trust the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day; (4) the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from those of ordinary workers at the workplace; (5) the worker received no work instructions from the employer and did not perform work at the business…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) The employer did not express consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to trust the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day; (4) the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from those of ordinary workers at the workplace; (5) the worker received no work instructions from the employer and did not perform work at the business… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Text Message Hiring Negotiation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae988 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) The employer never expressed consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to believe the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker claimed that an employment contract had been finalized based on working conditions he proposed via text message, and that he was subsequently unfairly dismissed, for which he sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission. The employer argued that the text messages were nothing more than part of a negotiation process, that no actual employment relationship had ever been formed, and therefore an unfair dismissal could not exist in the first place.
The worker asserted that a regular employment contract had been concluded on the conditions of working 09:30–21:30, a monthly salary of KRW 3.3 million, and an employment period of at least one year. The employer responded that it had never expressly accepted these conditions.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where working conditions are unilaterally proposed by text message and there is no express or implied consent from the employer, and there has been no actual reporting for work, no direction and supervision, and no wage agreement, can employee status under the Labor Standards Act be recognized so that the case falls within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer expressed consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); that the business begins preparations for opening from 10:00, so there was no reasonable basis for the worker to start work from 09:30; and that, given that all employees other than the store manager are part-time workers, the claim of a 12-hour workday was significantly inconsistent with the actual conditions of the workplace.
Taking into account that the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from the general wage structure of existing employees, and that there were no circumstances confirming that the worker had received specific work instructions from the employer or had actually provided work at the business under a subordinate relationship, the Commission determined that it was difficult to recognize employee status under the Labor Standards Act.
The Commission thus viewed that, since the establishment of an employment relationship could not be recognized from the outset, the requirements for “unfair dismissal” were not met, and on that basis the worker’s application for remedy was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure a broad range of evidence supporting employee status, not only text or messenger conversations but also actual attendance at work, the employer’s designation of working hours and workplace, specific work instructions, wage agreements and payment methods, and so on. In particular, where the worker claims working conditions that are significantly different from the usual conditions at the workplace, if the worker fails to secure the employer’s express consent to such conditions (through documents, recordings, messenger confirmations, etc.), it will be difficult to have credibility recognized before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary at the hiring negotiation stage to clearly set out specific working conditions in writing (employment contract, hiring confirmation, etc.), and to refine wording and procedures so that messages or oral proposals made before final agreement are not misunderstood as confirmation of hiring. In workplaces with many part-time workers, standard working hours, hourly wage/salary structures, and number of working days should be managed in a uniform manner so that objective benchmarks can be presented later in response to claims that there was a full-time or long-hours employment contract.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employer did not express consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to trust the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day; (4) the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from those of ordinary workers at the workplace; (5) the worker received no work instructions from the employer and did not perform work at the business…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) The employer did not express consent to the working conditions mentioned by the worker via text message (working hours 09:30–21:30, monthly salary KRW 3.3 million, employment period of at least one year); (2) the business prepares for opening from 10:00, so there was no reason for the worker to start work from 09:30; (3) all employees at the workplace other than the store manager are part-time workers, making it difficult to trust the worker’s claim that he was to work 12 hours a day; (4) the wage conditions asserted by the worker differed from those of ordinary workers at the workplace; (5) the worker received no work instructions from the employer and did not perform work at the business… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of employee status (text message hiring negotiation) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Text Message Hiring Negotiation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
