Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status and Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Worker)” (Unfair Dismissal 619)
- Date2026/08/12 04:19
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae107 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, a worker who had been working on a construction site claimed to be a fixed-term or continuously employed worker and challenged the termination as a dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission, however, found that the worker was a daily worker and ruled in favor of the employer. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, focusing on the nature of the employment contract and the terms of any re-contracting arrangements, whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a worker who repeatedly worked on a construction site should be regarded as a daily worker under the Labor Standards Act, or as a fixed-term/continuously employed worker who may seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. Furthermore, even if the worker were to be regarded as a fixed-term worker, the Commission also examined whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (expectation of renewal right) could be recognized with respect to renewal of the employment contract, such that a refusal to renew could be evaluated in the same way as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case held that an individual employment contract was formed for each day on which work was provided, and that the contract terminated upon completion of that day’s work; that even if there were some elements that might suggest continuous employment, it could not be viewed that the essential nature of the employment contract had been converted into a “fixed-term employment contract” or an open-ended contract; and that, given the characteristics of construction work, where manpower is flexibly deployed according to work stages and volume, it was appropriate to regard the worker as a daily worker.
Accordingly, since the termination in this case does not constitute a “dismissal” so long as it is merely the expiration of the employment contract, an application for remedy premised on unfair dismissal cannot be established and must be rejected.
Furthermore, even assuming that the worker were a fixed-term worker, the employment contract contained only a clause on refusal of re-contracting stating that “even during the construction period, either party may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and did not contain any provisions guaranteeing renewal upon satisfaction of certain conditions or setting out any renewal procedures. In addition, there was insufficient evidence in the practices of similar employment relationships to recognize a relationship of trust to the effect that “if there are no particular problems, renewal will naturally occur.” On this basis, the Commission found that an expectation of renewal could not be recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
In structures such as construction sites, where contracts and wages are determined on a daily basis, workers should be aware that, even if they have in fact worked for a long period, they may still be evaluated as daily workers, with the result that an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed or rejected at the threshold. To receive protection equivalent to that afforded to fixed-term or regular employees, it is important to secure, in advance, evidence that a “legitimate expectation of continued employment” has been formed, such as through the employment contract, work rules, collective agreements, and practices of repeated renewal.
In addition, when seeking advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, workers should first have their status reviewed—whether they are daily workers or fixed-term workers, and whether an expectation of renewal can be recognized—based on a comprehensive review of their employment contract, pay slips, records of enrollment in the four major social insurances, attendance records, and site assignment records.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the contract forms of daily construction workers and fixed-term workers, and to specify in the employment contract the contract period, whether renewal is possible, and the method of exercising any right to refuse renewal. In particular, where the contract merely states that “renewal may be refused,” but in practice most contracts have been automatically renewed, there is a risk that, due to the practice of repeated renewals, the fixed term will be regarded as merely formal. It is therefore advisable to codify renewal criteria and evaluation procedures, and to maintain records of cases in which renewal has actually been refused for some workers in accordance with those criteria.
The Labor Relations Commission determines employee status and expectation of renewal not only based on the wording of the employment contract, but also by comprehensively considering the number and duration of renewals, the actual status of re-contracting for comparable workers, and the continuity of the business. Accordingly, companies should manage risk from the stage of HR and labor management by ensuring that these factors do not become fixed in a particular direction, through regular updates of internal regulations and periodic reviews of HR practices.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract. Therefore, the worker falls under the category of a daily worker, and no dismissal exists. Even assuming that the worker in this case is not a daily worker but a fixed-term worker, the employment contract merely provides, in relation to re-contracting, that “even during the construction period, either Party A or Party B may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and contains no provisions regarding conditions for renewal; construction work proceeds in stages …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract. Therefore, the worker falls under the category of a daily worker, and no dismissal exists. Even assuming that the worker in this case is not a daily worker but a fixed-term worker, the employment contract merely provides, in relation to re-contracting, that “even during the construction period, either Party A or Party B may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and contains no provisions regarding conditions for renewal; construction work proceeds in stages … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker) can be viewed in the “Employee Status and Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Worker) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae107 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, a worker who had been working on a construction site claimed to be a fixed-term or continuously employed worker and challenged the termination as a dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission, however, found that the worker was a daily worker and ruled in favor of the employer. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, focusing on the nature of the employment contract and the terms of any re-contracting arrangements, whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a worker who repeatedly worked on a construction site should be regarded as a daily worker under the Labor Standards Act, or as a fixed-term/continuously employed worker who may seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. Furthermore, even if the worker were to be regarded as a fixed-term worker, the Commission also examined whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (expectation of renewal right) could be recognized with respect to renewal of the employment contract, such that a refusal to renew could be evaluated in the same way as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case held that an individual employment contract was formed for each day on which work was provided, and that the contract terminated upon completion of that day’s work; that even if there were some elements that might suggest continuous employment, it could not be viewed that the essential nature of the employment contract had been converted into a “fixed-term employment contract” or an open-ended contract; and that, given the characteristics of construction work, where manpower is flexibly deployed according to work stages and volume, it was appropriate to regard the worker as a daily worker.
Accordingly, since the termination in this case does not constitute a “dismissal” so long as it is merely the expiration of the employment contract, an application for remedy premised on unfair dismissal cannot be established and must be rejected.
Furthermore, even assuming that the worker were a fixed-term worker, the employment contract contained only a clause on refusal of re-contracting stating that “even during the construction period, either party may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and did not contain any provisions guaranteeing renewal upon satisfaction of certain conditions or setting out any renewal procedures. In addition, there was insufficient evidence in the practices of similar employment relationships to recognize a relationship of trust to the effect that “if there are no particular problems, renewal will naturally occur.” On this basis, the Commission found that an expectation of renewal could not be recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
In structures such as construction sites, where contracts and wages are determined on a daily basis, workers should be aware that, even if they have in fact worked for a long period, they may still be evaluated as daily workers, with the result that an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed or rejected at the threshold. To receive protection equivalent to that afforded to fixed-term or regular employees, it is important to secure, in advance, evidence that a “legitimate expectation of continued employment” has been formed, such as through the employment contract, work rules, collective agreements, and practices of repeated renewal.
In addition, when seeking advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, workers should first have their status reviewed—whether they are daily workers or fixed-term workers, and whether an expectation of renewal can be recognized—based on a comprehensive review of their employment contract, pay slips, records of enrollment in the four major social insurances, attendance records, and site assignment records.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the contract forms of daily construction workers and fixed-term workers, and to specify in the employment contract the contract period, whether renewal is possible, and the method of exercising any right to refuse renewal. In particular, where the contract merely states that “renewal may be refused,” but in practice most contracts have been automatically renewed, there is a risk that, due to the practice of repeated renewals, the fixed term will be regarded as merely formal. It is therefore advisable to codify renewal criteria and evaluation procedures, and to maintain records of cases in which renewal has actually been refused for some workers in accordance with those criteria.
The Labor Relations Commission determines employee status and expectation of renewal not only based on the wording of the employment contract, but also by comprehensively considering the number and duration of renewals, the actual status of re-contracting for comparable workers, and the continuity of the business. Accordingly, companies should manage risk from the stage of HR and labor management by ensuring that these factors do not become fixed in a particular direction, through regular updates of internal regulations and periodic reviews of HR practices.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract. Therefore, the worker falls under the category of a daily worker, and no dismissal exists. Even assuming that the worker in this case is not a daily worker but a fixed-term worker, the employment contract merely provides, in relation to re-contracting, that “even during the construction period, either Party A or Party B may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and contains no provisions regarding conditions for renewal; construction work proceeds in stages …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… It is reasonable to view that an individual employment contract is formed for each day on which work is provided and that each such contract terminates as soon as that day’s work is completed, and even if there are some elements suggesting continuous employment, it cannot be deemed that the essential nature of the employment contract has changed into a fixed-term employment contract. Therefore, the worker falls under the category of a daily worker, and no dismissal exists. Even assuming that the worker in this case is not a daily worker but a fixed-term worker, the employment contract merely provides, in relation to re-contracting, that “even during the construction period, either Party A or Party B may refuse re-contracting by giving one day’s prior notice,” and contains no provisions regarding conditions for renewal; construction work proceeds in stages … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status and expectation of renewal (daily construction worker) can be viewed in the “Employee Status and Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Worker) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
