Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dispute Over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduced Working Hours)” (Unfair Dismissal 622)
- Date2026/08/14 04:13
- Read 4
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “dispute over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae114 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it had merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting. This assertion was consistent with written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employment contract had been terminated by the employer’s notice of dismissal and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employer argued that it had only discussed a plan to reduce working hours at a staff meeting and had not carried out any unfair dismissal, and further asserted that it had subsequently given the employee the option either to maintain employment with reduced working hours or to resign in return for a severance payment.
The employee continued to report to work even after the scheduled contract end date, thereby expressing an intention to continue working, and the employer accepted this and recognized the work performed. Thus, the very circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship became the core issue in this case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where reduced working hours were discussed at a staff meeting and a plan for resignation and payment of a severance amount was proposed, the employment contract can be deemed to have been terminated by dismissal by the employer, and on whom the burden of proof regarding this point lies.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that the employer had only consulted on a reduction in working hours at the staff meeting and had not expressly notified the employee of dismissal; that the employer’s assertions were consistent with the contents of written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting; and that, even after the staff meeting, the employer had given the employee an opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that, although the burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, it was difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted, that the employer had unilaterally notified the employee of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the dismissal disposition in this case could not be recognized as having existed at all and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to assert unfair dismissal must bear in mind that they must prove, with concrete evidence, the fact that “the employer unilaterally communicated its intention to terminate the employment contract.” It is important to preserve, on an ongoing basis, materials such as recordings of meetings, text or messenger messages, emails, and HR documents in which an expression of intent to dismiss is clearly evident.
In addition, in ambiguous situations involving consultation on reduced working hours, offers of severance payments, or requests to submit a resignation letter, employees should, on the spot, clearly ask whether the situation constitutes dismissal, recommended resignation, or mere consultation, and, where possible, obtain confirmation in writing or by text message.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even when conducting simple consultations on changes to working conditions, rather than restructuring dismissals or workforce reductions, it is important to use clear language so that employees do not misunderstand the situation as a dismissal. During staff meetings and interviews, employers should refrain from using the term “dismissal,” and it is helpful for preventing disputes to record the content of consultations and the company’s position in minutes, written statements of fact, notices, and similar documents.
Proposals to reduce working hours and recommendations to resign in return for a severance payment can easily develop into disputes over forced resignation or voluntary resignation in name only. Employers should therefore make it clear that the choice rests with the employee and should clearly inform employees that they will not be dismissed regardless of whether a resignation letter is submitted.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to understand precisely the evidentiary structure concerning the very existence of an unfair dismissal—that is, whether the termination of the employment contract resulted from a unilateral dismissal by the employer—and to systematically organize the relevant facts and materials in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer has consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting, and this assertion is consistent with the written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting. In addition, after the staff meeting, the employer presented the employee with the opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment, and when the employee refused to prepare a statement of reasons for resignation and reported to work after the scheduled contract end date, the employer recognized such attendance at work as …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer has consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting, and this assertion is consistent with the written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting. In addition, after the staff meeting, the employer presented the employee with the opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment, and when the employee refused to prepare a statement of reasons for resignation and reported to work after the scheduled contract end date, the employer recognized such attendance at work as … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Automatic Renewal of Daily Employment)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dispute over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours), 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 ‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Automatic Renewal of Daily Employment)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disputes over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disputes Over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduced Working Hours)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “dispute over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae114 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it had merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting. This assertion was consistent with written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employment contract had been terminated by the employer’s notice of dismissal and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employer argued that it had only discussed a plan to reduce working hours at a staff meeting and had not carried out any unfair dismissal, and further asserted that it had subsequently given the employee the option either to maintain employment with reduced working hours or to resign in return for a severance payment.
The employee continued to report to work even after the scheduled contract end date, thereby expressing an intention to continue working, and the employer accepted this and recognized the work performed. Thus, the very circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship became the core issue in this case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where reduced working hours were discussed at a staff meeting and a plan for resignation and payment of a severance amount was proposed, the employment contract can be deemed to have been terminated by dismissal by the employer, and on whom the burden of proof regarding this point lies.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that the employer had only consulted on a reduction in working hours at the staff meeting and had not expressly notified the employee of dismissal; that the employer’s assertions were consistent with the contents of written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting; and that, even after the staff meeting, the employer had given the employee an opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that, although the burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, it was difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted, that the employer had unilaterally notified the employee of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the dismissal disposition in this case could not be recognized as having existed at all and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to assert unfair dismissal must bear in mind that they must prove, with concrete evidence, the fact that “the employer unilaterally communicated its intention to terminate the employment contract.” It is important to preserve, on an ongoing basis, materials such as recordings of meetings, text or messenger messages, emails, and HR documents in which an expression of intent to dismiss is clearly evident.
In addition, in ambiguous situations involving consultation on reduced working hours, offers of severance payments, or requests to submit a resignation letter, employees should, on the spot, clearly ask whether the situation constitutes dismissal, recommended resignation, or mere consultation, and, where possible, obtain confirmation in writing or by text message.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even when conducting simple consultations on changes to working conditions, rather than restructuring dismissals or workforce reductions, it is important to use clear language so that employees do not misunderstand the situation as a dismissal. During staff meetings and interviews, employers should refrain from using the term “dismissal,” and it is helpful for preventing disputes to record the content of consultations and the company’s position in minutes, written statements of fact, notices, and similar documents.
Proposals to reduce working hours and recommendations to resign in return for a severance payment can easily develop into disputes over forced resignation or voluntary resignation in name only. Employers should therefore make it clear that the choice rests with the employee and should clearly inform employees that they will not be dismissed regardless of whether a resignation letter is submitted.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to understand precisely the evidentiary structure concerning the very existence of an unfair dismissal—that is, whether the termination of the employment contract resulted from a unilateral dismissal by the employer—and to systematically organize the relevant facts and materials in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer has consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting, and this assertion is consistent with the written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting. In addition, after the staff meeting, the employer presented the employee with the opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment, and when the employee refused to prepare a statement of reasons for resignation and reported to work after the scheduled contract end date, the employer recognized such attendance at work as …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The burden of proof that the employment contract relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee asserting such dismissal, and it is difficult to acknowledge this based solely on the materials submitted. The employer has consistently denied having notified the employee of dismissal, asserting that it merely consulted on a reduction in working hours at a staff meeting, and this assertion is consistent with the written statements of fact submitted by other employees who attended the staff meeting. In addition, after the staff meeting, the employer presented the employee with the opportunity to choose between continuing to work without a reduction in working hours and resigning in return for a severance payment, and when the employee refused to prepare a statement of reasons for resignation and reported to work after the scheduled contract end date, the employer recognized such attendance at work as … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Automatic Renewal of Daily Employment)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dispute over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours), 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 ‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Automatic Renewal of Daily Employment)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disputes over existence of dismissal (consultation on reduced working hours) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disputes Over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduced Working Hours)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
