Work Ends Before Contract Expiry, Court Rules "Not Unfair Dismissal"

The court ruled that notifying fixed-term workers, whose assigned tasks have been completed, of the termination of their employment contract before the contract period expires does not constitute unfair dismissal.

Seoul Administrative Court.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 3 (Presiding Judge Choi Su-jin) ruled against three plumbers who had signed contracts with equipment construction company A in a lawsuit seeking to cancel the Central Labor Relations Commission chairman's decision on unfair dismissal relief.

The three plumbers signed monthly employment contracts with company A starting from January 2022 and worked at an apartment equipment construction site in Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi Province. In November of the same year, they signed an employment contract with company A specifying the work section as the 'underground parking lot' and the contract period from November 1 to November 30. However, company A verbally notified them on November 3 that their employment contract was terminated.

In response, the plumbers applied for relief, claiming that company A had unilaterally dismissed them without just cause. After both the local and central labor commissions dismissed their claims, they filed an administrative lawsuit. They argued that company A had unilaterally dismissed them despite the underground parking lot construction not being completed. They also claimed that since the work section was expected to require at least nine months to complete, their right to expect contract renewal should be recognized until the completion of the work section.

However, the court did not accept the plaintiffs' claims. The court pointed out that company A's construction plan scheduled the underground parking lot work to be completed by November 2022, and the team leader managing the three workers on site had informed them in early September and late October 2022 that the work would soon be completed, concluding that the underground parking lot work team’s tasks were effectively finished.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the right to expect contract renewal should be recognized until the work section’s completion based on the assumption that the work would require at least nine months, stating, "There is no evidence to support this." The court also noted that the employment contracts they signed explicitly stated that "even if the employment contract is renewed, if the team unit construction or work section they are responsible for is completed, the contract termination date shall be the date of completion regardless of the contract period," and thus concluded that the expectation of contract renewal could not be recognized.