Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Facility Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 614)
- Date2026/08/11 04:05
- Read 3
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal to renew (negligent performance by facility manager).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae599 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and it was acknowledged that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee working as a facility manager was notified by the employer, shortly before the expiration of his employment contract, that the contract would not be renewed. The employee claimed that this amounted to an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether there had been an unfair dismissal, but also, in particular, whether there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the fixed-term employee’s contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a fixed-term employee working as a facility manager had an expectation of renewal, the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract on the grounds of repeated negligent performance and poor management constitutes an objective and reasonable ground under social norms.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee, in his capacity as facility manager, had omitted various essential inspections and approvals, had signed in advance without actually checking inspection details, and had left the worksite of his own accord before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00.
In light of these facts, the panel held that such circumstances constitute grounds for serious doubt as to the level of trust and on-site operational capability required of a facility manager.
The dismissal measure in this case—namely, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further based on the above-mentioned problems in work performance and organizational management—was held not to be markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality in light of social norms, and therefore was not found to be unfair.
Applying the legal doctrine on the expectation of renewal of fixed-term employees, the Labor Relations Commission proceeded on the premise that the burden of proof regarding the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew lies with the employer.
Nevertheless, in this case, the Commission specifically confirmed the employee’s repeated omissions in inspections and approvals, his merely formal signatures, and his unauthorized early departures from work. It further noted that these grounds are directly connected to the core duties of a facility manager—namely, safety and facility management—and that, as a result, the trust relationship between labor and management and the order of on-site operations had been substantially impaired.
Taking all of this into account, the Commission held that the employer’s reasons for refusing renewal were objective and reasonable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees may, through repeated renewals or established practice, acquire an expectation of renewal and, in principle, be protected against unjust refusals to renew.
However, as in this case, if omissions in inspections and approvals, signing without verification, and early departures from work are repeated in core areas of one’s duties, this may provide the employer with reasonable grounds for refusal to renew, making it difficult to obtain a finding of unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission.
In particular, for those in managerial or supervisory roles such as facility managers or team leaders, attendance, and adherence to inspection and approval procedures, are at the very core of “trust.” It is therefore necessary to keep in mind the importance of these aspects and to organize records and explanatory materials at an early stage so that related criticisms do not accumulate.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when refusing to renew a fixed-term employee’s contract, it is advisable first to examine whether there is any possibility that the employee may be deemed to have an expectation of renewal.
Thereafter, the employer should整理 whether the reasons for refusal to renew are based on specific shortcomings in the employee’s work attitude or performance, and whether these can be objectively substantiated through documents, evaluations, records of instructions and warnings, and the like.
As in this case, if reasons directly connected to the core duties—such as a facility manager’s omissions in inspections and approvals, signing without verification, and unauthorized early departures—have been clearly accumulated and recorded, it is more likely that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the reasonableness of the refusal to renew.
For an employer to prevail in unfair dismissal/refusal-to-renew cases of this type, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the legal doctrine on the expectation of renewal for fixed-term employees and, in line with that doctrine, to establish in advance systematic practices for concluding and renewing employment contracts, evaluating performance, recording warnings, and deciding on renewal.
In particular, for managerial and supervisory positions, internal standards that allow for the objective evaluation and recording of job-related trust and operational capability should be put in place, as this will make it easier to obtain recognition of legitimacy from the Labor Relations Commission.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seob, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… it was acknowledged that the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality.
Therefore, as there existed reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract, the refusal to renew does not constitute an unfair act.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… it was acknowledged that the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality.
Therefore, as there existed reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract, the refusal to renew does not constitute an unfair act. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Original decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal to renew (negligent performance by facility manager), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal to renew (negligent performance by facility manager) can be viewed together on the “Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Facility Manager) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae599 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and it was acknowledged that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee working as a facility manager was notified by the employer, shortly before the expiration of his employment contract, that the contract would not be renewed. The employee claimed that this amounted to an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether there had been an unfair dismissal, but also, in particular, whether there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the fixed-term employee’s contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a fixed-term employee working as a facility manager had an expectation of renewal, the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract on the grounds of repeated negligent performance and poor management constitutes an objective and reasonable ground under social norms.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee, in his capacity as facility manager, had omitted various essential inspections and approvals, had signed in advance without actually checking inspection details, and had left the worksite of his own accord before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00.
In light of these facts, the panel held that such circumstances constitute grounds for serious doubt as to the level of trust and on-site operational capability required of a facility manager.
The dismissal measure in this case—namely, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further based on the above-mentioned problems in work performance and organizational management—was held not to be markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality in light of social norms, and therefore was not found to be unfair.
Applying the legal doctrine on the expectation of renewal of fixed-term employees, the Labor Relations Commission proceeded on the premise that the burden of proof regarding the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew lies with the employer.
Nevertheless, in this case, the Commission specifically confirmed the employee’s repeated omissions in inspections and approvals, his merely formal signatures, and his unauthorized early departures from work. It further noted that these grounds are directly connected to the core duties of a facility manager—namely, safety and facility management—and that, as a result, the trust relationship between labor and management and the order of on-site operations had been substantially impaired.
Taking all of this into account, the Commission held that the employer’s reasons for refusing renewal were objective and reasonable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees may, through repeated renewals or established practice, acquire an expectation of renewal and, in principle, be protected against unjust refusals to renew.
However, as in this case, if omissions in inspections and approvals, signing without verification, and early departures from work are repeated in core areas of one’s duties, this may provide the employer with reasonable grounds for refusal to renew, making it difficult to obtain a finding of unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission.
In particular, for those in managerial or supervisory roles such as facility managers or team leaders, attendance, and adherence to inspection and approval procedures, are at the very core of “trust.” It is therefore necessary to keep in mind the importance of these aspects and to organize records and explanatory materials at an early stage so that related criticisms do not accumulate.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when refusing to renew a fixed-term employee’s contract, it is advisable first to examine whether there is any possibility that the employee may be deemed to have an expectation of renewal.
Thereafter, the employer should整理 whether the reasons for refusal to renew are based on specific shortcomings in the employee’s work attitude or performance, and whether these can be objectively substantiated through documents, evaluations, records of instructions and warnings, and the like.
As in this case, if reasons directly connected to the core duties—such as a facility manager’s omissions in inspections and approvals, signing without verification, and unauthorized early departures—have been clearly accumulated and recorded, it is more likely that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the reasonableness of the refusal to renew.
For an employer to prevail in unfair dismissal/refusal-to-renew cases of this type, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the legal doctrine on the expectation of renewal for fixed-term employees and, in line with that doctrine, to establish in advance systematic practices for concluding and renewing employment contracts, evaluating performance, recording warnings, and deciding on renewal.
In particular, for managerial and supervisory positions, internal standards that allow for the objective evaluation and recording of job-related trust and operational capability should be put in place, as this will make it easier to obtain recognition of legitimacy from the Labor Relations Commission.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seob, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… it was acknowledged that the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality.
Therefore, as there existed reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract, the refusal to renew does not constitute an unfair act.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… it was acknowledged that the employee omitted to obtain approval for certain matters or signed in advance before checking inspection details, and that he left work at his own discretion before the scheduled quitting time of 18:00. These circumstances were held to give rise to doubts as to the level of trustworthiness and on-site management capability required of a facility manager. Accordingly, the employer’s decision not to renew the employment contract any further, based on such problems in work performance and organizational management, could not be viewed, in light of social norms, as markedly unreasonable or lacking in rationality.
Therefore, as there existed reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract, the refusal to renew does not constitute an unfair act. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Original decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal to renew (negligent performance by facility manager), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal to renew (negligent performance by facility manager) can be viewed together on the “Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Facility Manager) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
