"Off the Schedule" Is Not the Same as Termination: A 2026 Seoul High Court Ruling
A worker argues with his shift leader. That same day, his name disappears from the next work schedule. He doesn’t come back to work. About a month later, the company formally dismisses him for the absence.
Was the removal from the schedule itself a dismissal? Both the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) said yes, and ruled the company had committed unfair dismissal by not following the written notice procedure required under Korean law. The company disagreed and took the case to court. On June 25, 2026, the Seoul High Court sided with the company, affirming a first-instance ruling that no dismissal had occurred at all.
The case involved a Flex Assistant at a Coupang sorting camp in Seoul, but the reasoning applies well beyond one company. Any employer in Korea that manages staff through shift schedules, rosters, or similar planning tools should understand where this ruling draws the line.
Why the Threshold Question Matters So Much in Korea
Under Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer cannot dismiss a worker without justifiable cause. Article 27, Paragraph 1 adds a separate, purely procedural requirement: an employer who dismisses a worker must notify that worker in writing of the reason and the timing of the dismissal. Korean courts have consistently treated this written notice requirement as mandatory. A dismissal that skips it can be invalidated on procedural grounds alone, regardless of whether the underlying reason was otherwise justified.
That is why the threshold question, whether a given employer action counts as a dismissal in the first place, carries so much weight. Korean labor law also recognizes implied or de facto dismissal. An employer does not need to say the words "you are dismissed." If the employer's conduct, viewed objectively, shows a clear intention to end the employment relationship, courts and labor commissions can treat that conduct as a dismissal, with all the same procedural requirements attached.
This is the doctrine that both labor commissions relied on when they ruled in the worker's favor. The Seoul High Court's decision is significant because it shows where that doctrine has real limits.
The Facts
A worked as a Flex Assistant, a field support role, at two Coupang sorting camps in Jung-gu, Seoul. Camp workers in this role coordinate their days off and work locations in advance, and that coordination is then reflected in a work schedule for the relevant period.
(The underlying press report refers to the employer at different points as Coupang Logistics Services and Coupang Fulfillment Services, both Coupang affiliates involved in running its camp and delivery network. This post uses "Coupang" as shorthand for the employer.)
On December 2, 2023, A had an argument with B, the leader of both camps, and left for the day. That same day, B revised the shift schedule, replacing A with three other Flex Assistants for the relevant rotation. A did not return to work after that date.
A filed for relief with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing that being left off the schedule amounted to unfair dismissal. About a month later, in January 2024, Coupang formally dismissed A for the absence through disciplinary action. Both the regional commission and the NLRC on appeal ruled in A's favor, finding that the schedule removal itself was a dismissal, and that it was unlawful because Coupang never gave A the written notice required under Article 27, Paragraph 1. Coupang then sued to have the NLRC's ruling set aside. The first-instance court ruled for Coupang. The Seoul High Court's Administrative Division 7, under Presiding Judge Kwon Sun-hyeong, affirmed that outcome on appeal in Case No. 2025Nu8982, rejecting the appeals brought by the NLRC and by A as an intervening party.
Why the Court Found No Dismissal
The court's reasoning rested on three points.
First, the work schedule itself was not a formal instrument that established or ended the employment relationship. It was simply a planning document, built from the days off and locations that camp staff had already coordinated among themselves. Nothing in the record suggested the parties treated it as a tool for deciding whether someone remained employed.
Second, B's decision to adjust the schedule was a temporary, provisional step, not a final statement of intent to end A's employment. The court noted the practical backdrop: given the delivery routes, regional coverage, and staffing levels at the two camps, having field support staff in place was operationally necessary. With A's return uncertain after the argument, adjusting the schedule to avoid a coverage gap was, in the court's view, a reasonable response, not proof of an intent to terminate the relationship.
Third, the court pushed back on treating every temporary exclusion from work as a dismissal. Employers have several ways to remove a worker from active duty on a temporary or provisional basis, including suspension from position, standby assignment, and disciplinary suspension, none of which is a dismissal. Collapsing all of these into "dismissal" would stretch the concept further than the law intends.
The court added an important qualifier. Even if the schedule change turned out to be unfair to A in some other respect, that would be a separate question from whether it terminated the employment relationship. A wrongful act toward an employee does not automatically become a dismissal just because it is wrongful. On the facts here, the court found no basis to conclude that Coupang had impliedly dismissed A through the schedule change, so no dismissal existed at that point at all. The dismissal analysis only began with the formal disciplinary dismissal roughly a month later.
What This Means for Employers With Shift-Based or Flexible Staff in Korea
This ruling gives employers a useful data point, not a blank check. A few practical takeaways follow from it.
Keep scheduling and discipline conceptually and procedurally separate. A shift schedule is an operational planning tool. A dismissal is a formal legal act with its own requirements. Blurring the two, for example by using schedule changes as an informal way to push out a worker after a conflict, invites exactly the kind of implied dismissal claim this case addressed, and the outcome will depend heavily on the specific facts.
Document the operational reason behind a schedule change. The court leaned on the fact that maintaining coverage at the camps was a legitimate operational need, separate from any intent to end A's employment. Employers who can show a schedule adjustment was driven by staffing needs, rather than by the underlying conflict, are in a much stronger position if a claim follows.
When an employer does intend to dismiss a worker, follow Article 27, Paragraph 1 precisely. Provide the reason and the timing of the dismissal in writing.
Treat the implied dismissal doctrine as a live risk, not a settled non-issue. This case narrowed one specific application of the doctrine. It did not eliminate it. Employers who exclude a worker from the workplace, stop assigning shifts altogether, or otherwise make continued work practically impossible after a dispute still face a real risk that a labor commission or court will characterize that conduct as a dismissal, particularly if there is no ongoing operational explanation and no communication with the worker about their status.
For companies operating shift-based, flexible, or on-demand workforces in Korea, whether in logistics, retail, or hospitality, this case is a reminder that scheduling decisions made in the heat of a workplace conflict deserve the same care as any other personnel action.
---
This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific dismissal or workforce scheduling issue in Korea, please consult qualified Korean counsel.
