[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (notice of suspension at a construction site).” Decision date: 2026-09-10 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae2862 Key issue summary: Whether, in light of the employer’s notices and subsequent personnel arrangements in 2026, there existed an expression of intent to dismiss the employees in this case. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, workers employed at a construction site filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, asserting that they had in effect lost their jobs upon completion of the Osan Segyo site. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal had in fact occurred. The Commission assessed the content of the employer’s notices, the manner in which manpower was managed thereafter, and the circumstances surrounding inquiries about relocation to other sites, in order to determine whether unfair dismissal was established. This decision can be understood as one in which Labor Law Firm Law& confirmed once again important criteria applicable to this type of dispute. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where (i) a “notice of suspension” was given following completion of construction work at a site and (ii) there were subsequent inquiries about possible assignment to other sites, the employer can be deemed to have dismissed the employees—in other words, whether there existed an expression of intent to dismiss. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer had, in advance, notified the employees that, in line with the scheduled completion date of the Osan Segyo site, they would go on suspension after finishing the final wrap-up work; that, after the work was completed, the employer again informed them that the suspension period was beginning; and that, from 21 March 2026 to 24 March 2026, the employer repeatedly contacted the employees to ask whether they could perform work on the fence and gate construction at the “Meeting Plaza” construction site in Gwangju Metropolitan City. In light of these facts, the panel determined that these measures were not an explicit or implicit expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship, but rather constituted manpower management premised on temporary suspension following completion of the work and subsequent assignment to another site. The “dismissal” at issue in this case was held not to have occurred, because there had been no separate notice of dismissal to the employees and, on the contrary, the employer had explored the possibility of assigning them to another site and had not at all abandoned the premise of continued employment. Taking these circumstances together, the Commission concluded that no dismissal had taken place. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to note that an employer’s notice of “suspension” after completion of construction work does not, by itself, automatically amount to unfair dismissal. To actually contest a dismissal, one must carefully examine whether the employer’s intent to dismiss is objectively revealed in, for example, the wording of the dismissal notice, personnel orders or records of processing a resignation, reports of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, and any subsequent inquiries about relocation or instructions to return to work. In addition, if the employer has proposed assignment to another site several times and the employee refuses without a clear reason, there is a possibility that this may instead be evaluated as a refusal by the employee to provide labor. In situations where a dispute may arise, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to determine an appropriate response strategy. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important, in documentation, to clearly distinguish between situations where workforce reductions are unavoidable—such as closure of a construction site or collective redundancies—and situations where manpower is merely being managed through inter-site relocation or suspension. In particular, employers should avoid using expressions such as “dismissal,” “termination of employment contract,” or “processing of resignation,” and should instead provide specific written, text, or messenger-based guidance on the period and reasons for suspension, the premise of relocation, and future placement plans. Such documentation will serve as important defensive material when a labor relations commission later determines whether there was an expression of intent to dismiss. Furthermore, when considering assignment to another site after completion of construction, employers should keep records of when and with what content they contacted the employees, and how the employees responded. Such materials can serve as key evidence to prove that the situation involved “manpower management premised on continued employment, rather than dismissal.” 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was determined that no dismissal had occurred. 3. Summary of Reasoning A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In this case, the employer notified the employees on 9 March 2026 that, as completion of the Osan Segyo site was scheduled, they would go on suspension once the final wrap-up work was finished, and on 11 March 2026, after the work was completed, again informed them that the suspension period was beginning. In fact, from 21 March 2026 to 24 March 2026, the employer contacted the employees several times to inquire whether they could perform work at the fence and gate construction site of the “Meeting Plaza” construction project located in Gwangju Metropolitan City. In addition, there was no express notice of dismissal. Taking these circumstances together, the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred. [See More Related Decisions] - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (notice of suspension at construction site), 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, “‘Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (Notification via KakaoTalk)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of an expression of intent to dismiss (notice of suspension at construction site) can be viewed together in the “Non-Existence of an Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Notice of Suspension at Construction Site) – Related Decisions” section. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article