Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed‑Term Contract Workers)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 594)
- Date2026/08/04 04:11
- Read 11
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “intention to commit an unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae329 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026‑05‑20 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, with respect to the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference, there was insufficient proof that they possessed the substantive control and authority required to qualify as an “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and thus be subject to a remedial order. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer refused to rehire certain fixed‑term contract workers, after which the labor union and its members filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair labor practices. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the personnel evaluation data related to the refusal to rehire, the timing of union membership, and the company’s response to union activities in order to determine whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in the context of refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers, statistical disparities such as the proportion of union members alone are sufficient to recognize the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice and thereby characterize the conduct as an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the period subject to the suitability evaluation conducted by the employer preceded the employees’ union membership; that other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and that it was confirmed the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to infer an anti‑union motive—i.e., an intention to commit an unfair labor practice—based solely on statistical disparities.
The panel also found that there was insufficient proof that the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference possessed the substantive control and authority required to qualify as an “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and thus be subject to a remedial order.
Ultimately, with respect to the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers, the panel determined that the labor union and its members had failed to prove, through objective evidence, that the employer possessed an intention to commit an unfair labor practice and that the refusal constituted unfavorable treatment based on such intention. Accordingly, the claim of unfair labor practice was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee seeks to challenge an unfair labor practice before the Labor Relations Commission, it is not sufficient merely to allege that an unfavorable outcome occurred because the employee was a union member. It is necessary to specifically collect objective data and circumstances showing that only union members were discriminated against in the evaluation and rehire process. In particular, it is important to systematically organize evidence that can support an anti‑union motive, such as the timing of union membership, whether evaluation criteria were changed, comparative data with non‑union members, and managers’ remarks or instructions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when taking personnel measures such as refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers or conducting layoffs, it is necessary to clearly establish evaluation criteria and procedures in advance and to thoroughly maintain documents and records that can prove these were applied equally to union and non‑union members. In addition, implementing internal measures such as training to prevent unfair labor practices and adopting guidelines prohibiting disadvantageous treatment on the grounds of union activities can serve as important defensive materials in demonstrating to the Labor Relations Commission the absence of any intention to commit an unfair labor practice.
Taken together, for both employees and companies to prevent and respond to disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stages of a case, so that the factual background and evidentiary structure can be carefully designed.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, intention to commit unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers), refusal to renew fixed‑term contracts, 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, “‘Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to intention to commit unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers) can be viewed together in the “Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed‑Term Contract Workers) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “intention to commit an unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae329 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026‑05‑20 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, with respect to the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference, there was insufficient proof that they possessed the substantive control and authority required to qualify as an “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and thus be subject to a remedial order. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer refused to rehire certain fixed‑term contract workers, after which the labor union and its members filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair labor practices. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the personnel evaluation data related to the refusal to rehire, the timing of union membership, and the company’s response to union activities in order to determine whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in the context of refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers, statistical disparities such as the proportion of union members alone are sufficient to recognize the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice and thereby characterize the conduct as an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the period subject to the suitability evaluation conducted by the employer preceded the employees’ union membership; that other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and that it was confirmed the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to infer an anti‑union motive—i.e., an intention to commit an unfair labor practice—based solely on statistical disparities.
The panel also found that there was insufficient proof that the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference possessed the substantive control and authority required to qualify as an “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and thus be subject to a remedial order.
Ultimately, with respect to the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers, the panel determined that the labor union and its members had failed to prove, through objective evidence, that the employer possessed an intention to commit an unfair labor practice and that the refusal constituted unfavorable treatment based on such intention. Accordingly, the claim of unfair labor practice was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee seeks to challenge an unfair labor practice before the Labor Relations Commission, it is not sufficient merely to allege that an unfavorable outcome occurred because the employee was a union member. It is necessary to specifically collect objective data and circumstances showing that only union members were discriminated against in the evaluation and rehire process. In particular, it is important to systematically organize evidence that can support an anti‑union motive, such as the timing of union membership, whether evaluation criteria were changed, comparative data with non‑union members, and managers’ remarks or instructions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when taking personnel measures such as refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers or conducting layoffs, it is necessary to clearly establish evaluation criteria and procedures in advance and to thoroughly maintain documents and records that can prove these were applied equally to union and non‑union members. In addition, implementing internal measures such as training to prevent unfair labor practices and adopting guidelines prohibiting disadvantageous treatment on the grounds of union activities can serve as important defensive materials in demonstrating to the Labor Relations Commission the absence of any intention to commit an unfair labor practice.
Taken together, for both employees and companies to prevent and respond to disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stages of a case, so that the factual background and evidentiary structure can be carefully designed.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice of unfavorable treatment and domination/interference
There were no special circumstances or objective proof to support the view that the refusal to rehire the fixed‑term contract workers was based on the employer’s intention to commit an unfair labor practice; the period subject to the suitability evaluation preceded the employees’ union membership; other members of the same labor union were rehired through the same evaluation procedure; and it was confirmed that the employer had taken preventive measures against unfair labor practices in advance. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to conclude, based on statistical disparities alone, that the unfavorable treatment resulted from an intention to commit an unfair labor practice. In addition, the key managers identified as the actors of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, intention to commit unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers), refusal to renew fixed‑term contracts, 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, “‘Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to intention to commit unfair labor practice (refusal to rehire fixed‑term contract workers) can be viewed together in the “Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed‑Term Contract Workers) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
