[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether a text message constituted notice of dismissal. Decision date: 2026-07-27 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1288 Key issue summary: The employee in this case in 2026… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an unfair dismissal application filed with the Labor Relations Commission by an employee after the employer sent a text message suggesting that the employee resign. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined whether a “dismissal” existed by comprehensively examining the content of the text message, the subsequent course of discussions between the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the employer’s repeated requests for the employee to report to work and the employee’s refusals. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In circumstances where the employer sent a text message suggesting resignation and then repeatedly requested that the employee report to work, does the unfair dismissal claimed by the employee actually constitute a ‘dismissal’?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer, in the text message, expressed the intent that “it seems the circumstances of the hospital do not fit well with you, so I would like to ask you to wrap up your work; I will arrange for your wages to be settled and sent as quickly as possible,” that the wording and tone of the message appeared not as a unilateral notice of dismissal but as a request/invitation asking the employee about their intention to resign, and that when the employee, upon receiving the text, responded that “this is unfair dismissal, but I will accept it if you pay one month’s wages as consolation money,” the employer immediately withdrew that suggestion and continued to request that the employee report to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the text message sent by the employer was not a unilateral notice definitively terminating the employment relationship, but merely part of a process of consultation to discuss the method of ending the employment relationship (resignation, mutual agreement to terminate, etc.). Furthermore, given that the employer repeatedly requested that the employee report to work thereafter, but the employee did not comply and instead refused to report to work of their own accord, the Commission held that it could not be concluded that a dismissal by the employer existed in this case, and therefore it was difficult to recognize the very existence of a “dismissal,” which is a prerequisite for an unfair dismissal relief application. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer’s text message or verbal expression feels somewhat definitive, if the employer subsequently makes repeated requests for the employee to report to work, it is necessary to examine very carefully whether a notice of dismissal has in fact been finalized. To assert unfair dismissal, it is important to systematically organize the overall circumstances, including whether there was a unilateral and definitive expression of intent to dismiss by the employer, whether the employer later retracted that intent or refrained from requesting that the employee report to work, and the employee’s own response (such as refusal to report to work). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when discussing termination of the employment relationship, such as by suggesting resignation or implementing a redundancy, using ambiguous expressions via text message or messenger can easily give rise to disputes over whether a dismissal occurred. When suggesting resignation, it should be made clear that the employer is merely inquiring whether the employee has an intention to resign. If there is room for the employee to perceive the situation as unfair dismissal, the company should clearly record its position through written notices and repeated requests for the employee to report to work. In addition, because the legal assessment and burden of proof before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may differ depending on whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship is dismissal, resignation, or mutual agreement to terminate, it is advisable to consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to refine the wording, procedures, and supporting documentation. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that it could not be concluded that a dismissal by the employer existed, where the employee claimed unfair dismissal in response to the employer’s suggestion of resignation and then refused the employer’s subsequent, continued requests to report to work. 3. Summary of Reasoning A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee in this case argued that on 2026. 3. 8. the employer definitively notified her of dismissal by sending a text message stating that it seemed she did not fit well with the hospital’s circumstances, that the employer would like to ask her to wrap up her work, and that wages would be settled and sent as quickly as possible. However, the Commission found that the text message sent by the employer to the employee appeared, in its request form, to be asking about the employee’s intention to resign; that when the employee, upon receiving the message, responded that this was unfair dismissal but that she would accept it if one month’s wages were paid as consolation money, the employer withdrew that suggestion and requested that the employee report to work; and that thereafter the employee continued to refuse the employer’s repeated requests to report to work. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the Commission held that the text message sent by the employer to the employee was merely part of a process to discuss the type of termination of the employment relationship between them and could not be regarded as a definitive notice of dismissal, and, in light of the fact that the employee subsequently refused to report to work, it could not be concluded that a dismissal existed in this case. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal notice (text message), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Standing to Sue (Expiration of Dispatch Worker’s Contract),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal notice (text message) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal Notice (Text Message).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article