[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “misunderstanding regarding the existence of dismissal (consultation on changes to working conditions).” Decision date: 2026-07-27 · Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1777 Key issues in summary: (i) After the employee signed an employment contract with a fixed term of six months, she discussed changing the contract period with the head nurse on the ground that the term differed from the working conditions set out in the job posting and in pre-hire discussions, and then stopped reporting to work from the next day; (ii) about a week later, in a telephone call with the general affairs manager, she was informed of the hospital’s position that she could return to her original position and could be hired as a regular employee; (iii) with respect to the working conditions issues that arose after the employment contract was concluded … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a fixed-term nurse hired by a hospital who filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. After signing an employment contract with a fixed term of six months, the employee raised an objection to the contract period on the ground that it differed from the period indicated in the job posting and prior discussions, and she stopped reporting to work. In subsequent telephone conversations with the employer, whether she had been dismissed became a point of dispute, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether unfair dismissal had occurred. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Whether the mere fact that a dispute arose during consultations on working conditions (in particular, the contract period) after the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract is sufficient to deem that the employer made a unilateral and definitive declaration of intent to terminate the employment relationship, and, further, whether there exists a ‘dismissal’ as a prerequisite for an application for relief from unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that, after the employee personally signed a six‑month fixed-term employment contract, she immediately stopped reporting to work following discussions with the head nurse about changing the contract period on the ground that it differed from the job posting and prior discussions; that about a week later, in a telephone call with the general affairs manager, the hospital clearly conveyed its position that she could return to her original position and that hiring her as a regular employee was possible; and that, throughout the entire process after the contract was concluded, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer, expressly or impliedly, made a definitive declaration of intent that it would “no longer maintain the employment relationship.” The panel further found that the employee’s refusal to provide labor was based on her own decision, not on any notice of dismissal by the employer; that the employer’s actions in filing an employment insurance loss report and blocking her access to the internal messenger system were merely technical and managerial measures for the purposes of wage payment and protection of the hospital’s systems and patient information; and that, even if there were proposals and consultations regarding changes to certain working conditions during the contract formation process, there was no objective evidence to regard these as a unilateral declaration of dismissal by the employer. On this basis, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees who wish to allege unfair dismissal must be able to prove that the employer made a definitive declaration of intent to terminate the employment relationship against the employee’s will. Simply ceasing to report to work due to dissatisfaction with contract terms, or the mere existence of emotional conflict during consultations, is unlikely to be recognized as dismissal. Moreover, if the company permits the employee to return or presents alternatives on the premise of maintaining the employment relationship, the situation may instead be evaluated as a voluntary refusal to work by the employee. Accordingly, even in the midst of a dispute, employees should clearly express their intention to report to work and to continue working, and should leave evidence of this through written communications, messenger messages, and similar means. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when conducting consultations on changes to working conditions or on conversion from fixed-term to regular employment, it is necessary to clearly document, in writing or via messenger, the employer’s intention to maintain the employment relationship and the specific proposals made, in order to prevent future disputes over dismissal. In addition, the purposes and background of subsequent measures such as filing an employment insurance loss report or blocking system access should be recorded so that the employer can explain that these were management actions for wage and information protection, not acts of dismissal. As in this case, the Labor Relations Commission tends to strictly distinguish among the various types of termination of employment relationships—such as dismissal, resignation, termination by mutual agreement, and automatic termination—and first examines whether the termination of the employment contract actually resulted from the employer’s unilateral intent to dismiss. Therefore, it is advisable for both employees and employers to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to systematically organize the facts and the form of expressions of intent in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that there was no dismissal, on the ground that there was no basis to find that the employer had made a unilateral declaration of intent to terminate the employment relationship. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) After the employee signed an employment contract with a fixed term of six months, she discussed changing the contract period with the head nurse on the ground that the working conditions differed from those set out in the job posting and in pre-hire discussions, and then stopped reporting to work from the next day; (2) about a week later, in a telephone call with the general affairs manager, she was informed of the hospital’s position confirming that she could return to her original position and that she could be hired as a regular employee; (3) during the consultations or proposals for changes regarding working conditions that arose after the conclusion of the employment contract, the employer did not, either expressly or impliedly, make any definitive declaration of intent to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee’s refusal to provide labor was based on her own decision; (4) the employer’s filing of an employment insurance loss report and blocking of access to the internal messenger system were measures taken for wage payment and for protecting the hospital’s internal systems and patient information; and (5) although it is true that some proposals were made regarding changes to certain working conditions during the process of concluding the employment contract between the parties, there is no basis to find that the employment relationship was terminated by a unilateral declaration of intent by the employer. Taking all of these factors together, the Commission concluded that there was no dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Benefit of Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, misunderstanding regarding the existence of dismissal (consultation on changes to working conditions), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Refusal to Submit Written Explanation · Poor Attendance)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to misunderstanding regarding the existence of dismissal (consultation on changes to working conditions) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstanding Regarding the Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Changes to Working Conditions).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article