[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was revoked in relation to the issues of “employee status and existence of dismissal (pet groomer).” Decision date: 2026-09-17 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae284 Summary of key issues: A. Whether the worker falls under the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act: (1) the employer determined the worker’s duties, and the worker was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (2) the worker received fixed and regular payments as consideration for work; (3) the worker was bound by designated working hours and workplace; and (4) the worker was recognized as an employee under social security laws and regulations. In light of these factors, the worker was deemed to have provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages under the Labor Standards Act… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a pet groomer employed at a pet grooming business who filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. In Case No. 2026BuHae284, the Central Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether the groomer qualified as an employee, whether the workplace had five or more regular employees, whether the employer’s words and conduct constituted a dismissal, and whether there was a violation of the obligation to give written notice of dismissal. The key issue in this case is whether “a pet groomer who qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and works at a business with five or more regular employees can file for remedy for unfair dismissal even where the employer merely told the worker verbally to ‘quit’ without more.” Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The core issues in this case are, first, whether the pet groomer qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act even though, in form, the relationship was styled as freelance or a consignment contract. Second, whether the business falls within the scope of a workplace with five or more regular employees subject to unfair dismissal remedy procedures when other pet groomers in the same line of business are also counted. Third, whether the employer’s unilateral statement to the effect of “quit” made after an accident occurred during a dog’s bath can be viewed as a dismissal rather than a resignation by the worker. Fourth, whether a dismissal carried out without written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal can be considered effective. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employer determined the pet groomer’s duties and exercised substantial direction and supervision; that the employer paid fixed and regular remuneration; that the employer designated and thereby restricted the working hours and workplace; and that the groomer was recognized as an employee under social security schemes such as the four major insurances. In light of these factors, the panel held that the pet groomer was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. The panel further held that the four other pet groomers working in the same manner did not differ in any essential respect regarding the assessment of employee status, and therefore all should be regarded as employees under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the number of regular employees at the workplace was deemed to be five or more. In addition, during the dispute over the accident that occurred while bathing a dog, the employer unilaterally told the worker, in substance, to “quit,” and there was no evidence that the worker clearly expressed any intention to resign. The panel therefore determined that the situation constituted a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, not a resignation or termination by mutual agreement. Finally, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act adopts a formalistic approach to dismissal by requiring employers to give written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal. The employer in this case failed to comply with this requirement at all. On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal was procedurally defective and therefore invalid, and ultimately constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if you are formally treated as a freelancer or independent contractor in occupations such as pet groomer, delivery/quick service rider, or private academy instructor, you may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, you are subject to the employer’s direction and supervision, receive regular wages, and are bound by designated working hours and workplace. Also, if the employer unilaterally informs you that the relationship is terminated by saying things like “quit” or “don’t come in from tomorrow,” the existence of a dismissal may be recognized regardless of whether written notice was given, and you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. In particular, if you did not receive any written document stating the grounds and timing of dismissal, you can challenge the validity of the dismissal on the basis of a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It is important to obtain systematic assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare factual materials and evidence of employee status (work schedules, pay records, messages, records of enrollment in the four major insurances, etc.) in an organized manner. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) Even if you label workers such as pet groomers, store managers, or instructors as freelancers or consignment contractors, they may still be deemed employees under the Labor Standards Act if the actual operation of the business contains many elements indicative of employee status. Employers should therefore carefully review not only the formal contract type but also the actual structure of direction and supervision, the designation of working hours and workplace, and the method of remuneration. When considering termination of the relationship with an employee, employers should avoid emotional statements such as “just quit,” and instead clearly confirm whether the worker intends to resign. If dismissal is unavoidable, employers must comply with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by delivering a written document that specifically states the grounds and timing of dismissal. Furthermore, when calculating the number of regular employees, if workers who actually work in the same manner are arbitrarily treated as freelancers so that the business appears to have fewer than five employees, the Labor Relations Commission may reassess both employee status and whether the workplace has five or more employees. Employers should therefore adjust their personnel management practices to reflect reality and, where necessary, establish an ongoing advisory system with professional organizations such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that: (i) the worker was an employee under the Labor Standards Act; (ii) the workplace had five or more regular employees and thus fell within the scope of remedy; (iii) a dismissal existed; and (iv) the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to give written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal. 3. Summary of Findings A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act (1) The employer determined the worker’s duties and the worker was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (2) the worker received fixed and regular payments as consideration for work; (3) the worker was bound by working hours and workplace; and (4) the worker was recognized as an employee under social security laws and regulations. In light of these factors, the worker falls under the definition of an employee under the Labor Standards Act, having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. B. Whether There Are Five or More Regular Employees There are no differences among the four other pet groomers at the workplace that would affect the assessment of employee status. They are therefore employees under the Labor Standards Act, and the number of regular employees at the workplace is five or more. C. Whether a Dismissal Exists During a dispute between the employer and the worker over an accident that occurred while bathing a dog, the employer unilaterally told the worker, in substance, to quit, and the worker never expressed an intention to resign. Accordingly, the panel determined that a dismissal exists. D. Whether the Dismissal Was Justified The employer violated the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to give written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal when dismissing the worker. Therefore, the dismissal is unfair. [Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Legitimate Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employee status and existence of dismissal (pet groomer), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Disciplinary Measure (Four Traffic Accidents Involving Special Transportation Services)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of precedents related to employee status and existence of dismissal (pet groomer) can be found under “List of Precedents Related to Employee Status and Existence of Dismissal (Pet Groomer).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article