Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 599)
- Date2026/08/06 04:09
- Read 7
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “standing to sue (construction day labor platform),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “standing to sue (construction day labor platform),” which concluded with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and paid wages directly to the worker, thereby substantively engaging in the employment relationship; accordingly, standing to sue was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose from an application for remedy filed with the Labor Relations Commission by a worker hired through a construction site day-labor job platform, alleging unfair dismissal. The issues before the Commission were whether the company identified as the employer was in fact a substantive employer, given that it paid wages directly to the worker and otherwise engaged in the employment relationship, and whether the worker was an employee on the premise of continuous employment or a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Depending on these determinations, the existence of any interest in seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal was at issue.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where a worker has worked only one day through a construction site day-labor job platform, and the recruitment notice is posted in the name of the workplace and wages are paid directly, does the employer have standing to be a party, and, in the absence of any separate agreement on continuous employment, can the termination of a one-day day-labor relationship be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, because the employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker, the employer did have standing to be a party in this unfair dismissal remedy case.
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor platform and worked only one day (15 December 2025). No written employment contract was prepared, and there was no separate agreement regarding continuous employment thereafter. Considering these circumstances, and that it was difficult to find that an employment contract of indefinite duration or an employment relationship repeatedly renewed over a certain period had been formed between the parties, the panel held that it was appropriate to regard this worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, the alleged dismissal could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal premised on a continuing employment relationship.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
The Labor Relations Commission and the courts determine employee status and the identity of the employer based on the substantive relationship of subordination and control, rather than formalities. Therefore, even if you work through a platform, you must carefully identify who actually directs and supervises your work and who pays your wages. However, in cases such as construction site day labor, where workers are hired on a one-day basis and there is no explicit or implicit agreement—whether in a written contract or otherwise—on repeated or continuous employment, you should be aware that the employment relationship is generally deemed to end upon completion of work on that day, making it difficult for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal to be upheld.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Even where a platform is used, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize a company as the employer depending on whose name is used in the recruitment notice, who pays the wages, and who directs and supervises the work on site. Accordingly, companies should clearly establish and organize in advance the legal responsibility structure in this regard. In addition, when utilizing construction day laborers, the relationship does not automatically end after one day merely because the position is labeled “day labor.” If work is repeated or continuous, the relationship may be evaluated as an employment contract of indefinite duration. Employers should therefore systematically manage the preparation of employment contracts, methods of work assignment, and attendance/working day records.
Labor Law Firm Law& develops response strategies on the basis of accumulated decisions and court precedents regarding unfair dismissal, collective redundancies, and issues of standing to sue and employee status in platform-based and day-labor employment relationships. If a similar dispute is anticipated or a case is already pending before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to obtain professional advice from the initial stage to organize the facts and contractual structure.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker; therefore, standing to sue was recognized.
b. Whether the worker was a day laborer
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor job platform and worked for one day on 15 December 2025, and no written employment contract was prepared nor any separate agreement on continuous employment existed. In light of these circumstances, it is appropriate to regard the worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Accordingly, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, it is determined that no unfair dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker; therefore, standing to sue was recognized.
b. Whether the worker was a day laborer
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor job platform and worked for one day on 15 December 2025, and no written employment contract was prepared nor any separate agreement on continuous employment existed. In light of these circumstances, it is appropriate to regard the worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Accordingly, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, it is determined that no unfair dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, standing to sue (construction day labor platform), 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 Related to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Damage Arising from Non-Performance of Duties)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to standing to sue (construction day labor platform) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “standing to sue (construction day labor platform),” which concluded with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and paid wages directly to the worker, thereby substantively engaging in the employment relationship; accordingly, standing to sue was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose from an application for remedy filed with the Labor Relations Commission by a worker hired through a construction site day-labor job platform, alleging unfair dismissal. The issues before the Commission were whether the company identified as the employer was in fact a substantive employer, given that it paid wages directly to the worker and otherwise engaged in the employment relationship, and whether the worker was an employee on the premise of continuous employment or a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Depending on these determinations, the existence of any interest in seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal was at issue.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where a worker has worked only one day through a construction site day-labor job platform, and the recruitment notice is posted in the name of the workplace and wages are paid directly, does the employer have standing to be a party, and, in the absence of any separate agreement on continuous employment, can the termination of a one-day day-labor relationship be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, because the employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker, the employer did have standing to be a party in this unfair dismissal remedy case.
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor platform and worked only one day (15 December 2025). No written employment contract was prepared, and there was no separate agreement regarding continuous employment thereafter. Considering these circumstances, and that it was difficult to find that an employment contract of indefinite duration or an employment relationship repeatedly renewed over a certain period had been formed between the parties, the panel held that it was appropriate to regard this worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, the alleged dismissal could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal premised on a continuing employment relationship.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
The Labor Relations Commission and the courts determine employee status and the identity of the employer based on the substantive relationship of subordination and control, rather than formalities. Therefore, even if you work through a platform, you must carefully identify who actually directs and supervises your work and who pays your wages. However, in cases such as construction site day labor, where workers are hired on a one-day basis and there is no explicit or implicit agreement—whether in a written contract or otherwise—on repeated or continuous employment, you should be aware that the employment relationship is generally deemed to end upon completion of work on that day, making it difficult for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal to be upheld.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Even where a platform is used, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize a company as the employer depending on whose name is used in the recruitment notice, who pays the wages, and who directs and supervises the work on site. Accordingly, companies should clearly establish and organize in advance the legal responsibility structure in this regard. In addition, when utilizing construction day laborers, the relationship does not automatically end after one day merely because the position is labeled “day labor.” If work is repeated or continuous, the relationship may be evaluated as an employment contract of indefinite duration. Employers should therefore systematically manage the preparation of employment contracts, methods of work assignment, and attendance/working day records.
Labor Law Firm Law& develops response strategies on the basis of accumulated decisions and court precedents regarding unfair dismissal, collective redundancies, and issues of standing to sue and employee status in platform-based and day-labor employment relationships. If a similar dispute is anticipated or a case is already pending before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to obtain professional advice from the initial stage to organize the facts and contractual structure.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker; therefore, standing to sue was recognized.
b. Whether the worker was a day laborer
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor job platform and worked for one day on 15 December 2025, and no written employment contract was prepared nor any separate agreement on continuous employment existed. In light of these circumstances, it is appropriate to regard the worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Accordingly, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, it is determined that no unfair dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… Whether the employer had standing to be a party. The employer posted the recruitment notice in the name of the workplace and substantively engaged in the employment relationship by, among other things, paying wages directly to the worker; therefore, standing to sue was recognized.
b. Whether the worker was a day laborer
The worker was hired through a construction site day-labor job platform and worked for one day on 15 December 2025, and no written employment contract was prepared nor any separate agreement on continuous employment existed. In light of these circumstances, it is appropriate to regard the worker as a day laborer employed on a one-day basis. Accordingly, since the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have ended upon completion of work on that day, it is determined that no unfair dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, standing to sue (construction day labor platform), 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 Related to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Damage Arising from Non-Performance of Duties)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to standing to sue (construction day labor platform) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
