Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Number of Regular Employees (Fitness Trainers)” (Unfair Dismissal 615)
- Date2026/08/11 04:11
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of the issue of the “number of regular employees (fitness trainers).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae530 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-07-13 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: ... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed was, excluding the fitness trainers, the remaining ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a fitness center claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The key issue was whether the workplace was a business with fewer than five regular employees. The Labor Relations Commission first examined the legal status of the fitness trainers and the operational structure of each branch, and then determined whether this business fell within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief provisions under the Labor Standards Act.
Labor Law Firm Law& wishes to emphasize, in cases of this nature, that calculating the number of regular employees and determining worker status are prerequisites for the possibility of obtaining relief for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the fitness trainers have entered into business consignment contracts as independent income earners, they can be included in the number of regular employees so that the business can be regarded as a “business with at least five regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act, and, accordingly, whether an application for relief for unfair dismissal may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that each branch was operated independently by the employer; that the fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts rather than employment contracts with the company; and that, in light of the criteria for determining worker status under the Labor Standards Act, it was difficult to regard the fitness trainers as workers subordinate to the employer.
On this basis, the panel held that, when calculating the number of regular employees employed during the one‑month period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company, the number of regular employees, even excluding the fitness trainers, was confirmed to be fewer than five.
The dismissal in this case can therefore be summarized as having been dismissed (procedurally) on the ground that the business did not constitute a workplace with at least five regular employees under the Labor Standards Act and thus did not fall within the scope of application of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal relief procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
An employee who wishes to claim unfair dismissal must first bear in mind that it is a prerequisite that they qualify as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and that the business employs at least five regular employees. In particular, even where contracts are structured as consignment or subcontracting arrangements—such as for fitness trainers, instructors, or freelancers—it is necessary to carefully examine whether worker status may in fact be recognized by comprehensively considering various factors, including the employer’s direction and supervision, designation of working hours and place of work, the nature of remuneration, and exclusivity.
In addition, because the number of regular employees is calculated based on the total number of worker‑days and operating days for the one‑month period prior to the date on which the grounds for application of the law arise, it is important to secure favorable evidence in advance, such as work schedules, attendance records, and payroll data.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the legal principles governing the determination of worker status, and to align the contractual forms and management practices for independent income earners and consignment personnel, such as fitness trainers, with the actual operational circumstances. Even if accounting is separated by branch or personnel are divided and managed by location, there is a risk that, as in Supreme Court precedents, the structure may be substantively evaluated as a single business, in which case the total number of employees may need to be aggregated. Accordingly, employers should clearly define workplace boundaries and establish coherent personnel and labor management systems.
Furthermore, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, when workforce reductions or redundancies are necessary, employers should first examine whether the Labor Standards Act applies (i.e., whether there are at least five regular employees). If the business falls within the scope of application, it is advisable to proactively seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to ensure that the substantive and procedural requirements for lawful dismissal are satisfied.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed, without needing to further examine whether the remaining personnel were workers, was confirmed to be fewer than five even when the fitness trainers were excluded, and therefore the business did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed, without needing to further examine whether the remaining personnel were workers, was confirmed to be fewer than five even when the fitness trainers were excluded, and therefore the business did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: - Case Result: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Building Manager)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (fitness trainers), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Building Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (fitness trainers) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Number of Regular Employees (Fitness Trainers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of the issue of the “number of regular employees (fitness trainers).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae530 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-07-13 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: ... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed was, excluding the fitness trainers, the remaining ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a fitness center claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The key issue was whether the workplace was a business with fewer than five regular employees. The Labor Relations Commission first examined the legal status of the fitness trainers and the operational structure of each branch, and then determined whether this business fell within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief provisions under the Labor Standards Act.
Labor Law Firm Law& wishes to emphasize, in cases of this nature, that calculating the number of regular employees and determining worker status are prerequisites for the possibility of obtaining relief for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the fitness trainers have entered into business consignment contracts as independent income earners, they can be included in the number of regular employees so that the business can be regarded as a “business with at least five regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act, and, accordingly, whether an application for relief for unfair dismissal may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that each branch was operated independently by the employer; that the fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts rather than employment contracts with the company; and that, in light of the criteria for determining worker status under the Labor Standards Act, it was difficult to regard the fitness trainers as workers subordinate to the employer.
On this basis, the panel held that, when calculating the number of regular employees employed during the one‑month period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company, the number of regular employees, even excluding the fitness trainers, was confirmed to be fewer than five.
The dismissal in this case can therefore be summarized as having been dismissed (procedurally) on the ground that the business did not constitute a workplace with at least five regular employees under the Labor Standards Act and thus did not fall within the scope of application of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal relief procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
An employee who wishes to claim unfair dismissal must first bear in mind that it is a prerequisite that they qualify as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and that the business employs at least five regular employees. In particular, even where contracts are structured as consignment or subcontracting arrangements—such as for fitness trainers, instructors, or freelancers—it is necessary to carefully examine whether worker status may in fact be recognized by comprehensively considering various factors, including the employer’s direction and supervision, designation of working hours and place of work, the nature of remuneration, and exclusivity.
In addition, because the number of regular employees is calculated based on the total number of worker‑days and operating days for the one‑month period prior to the date on which the grounds for application of the law arise, it is important to secure favorable evidence in advance, such as work schedules, attendance records, and payroll data.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the legal principles governing the determination of worker status, and to align the contractual forms and management practices for independent income earners and consignment personnel, such as fitness trainers, with the actual operational circumstances. Even if accounting is separated by branch or personnel are divided and managed by location, there is a risk that, as in Supreme Court precedents, the structure may be substantively evaluated as a single business, in which case the total number of employees may need to be aggregated. Accordingly, employers should clearly define workplace boundaries and establish coherent personnel and labor management systems.
Furthermore, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, when workforce reductions or redundancies are necessary, employers should first examine whether the Labor Standards Act applies (i.e., whether there are at least five regular employees). If the business falls within the scope of application, it is advisable to proactively seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to ensure that the substantive and procedural requirements for lawful dismissal are satisfied.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed, without needing to further examine whether the remaining personnel were workers, was confirmed to be fewer than five even when the fitness trainers were excluded, and therefore the business did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... The employee claimed that the company had at least five regular employees, while the company argued that each branch was operated independently, and that the company’s fitness trainers provided labor as independent income earners under business consignment contracts and therefore could not be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act. On this basis, the company asserted that, during the one‑month calculation period immediately preceding the date on which the grounds for application of the Act arose for the company (23 April 2026) (23 March 2026–22 April 2026), the number of workers employed, without needing to further examine whether the remaining personnel were workers, was confirmed to be fewer than five even when the fitness trainers were excluded, and therefore the business did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal relief procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: - Case Result: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Building Manager)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (fitness trainers), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Negligent Performance by Building Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (fitness trainers) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Number of Regular Employees (Fitness Trainers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
