Weekly Contributions

A Foreign Teacher’s Fight Against Unfair Dismissal

Bongsoo Jung, Korean labor attorney, KangNam Labor Law Firm

Opening

“I never agreed to resign.” An American instructor who had come to Korea to build a career in teaching suddenly found himself confronting a very different account of his departure. The academy said the employment relationship had ended by mutual agreement: after all, it had settled his pay and arranged temporary accommodation. The instructor insisted he had never consented to leave. Could signing a payment and housing confirmation really amount to a resignation?

 

I. A Promising Start in Korea

In the summer of 2009, a TESOL academy headquartered in Seoul, with a branch in Busan, urgently needed a replacement for an instructor who had unexpectedly left. It invited an American teacher to Korea and arranged temporary work while his E-2 employment visa was being processed. On August 5, the parties signed both a temporary employment agreement and a one-year contract running from September 5, 2009, through September 4, 2010. From the teacher’s perspective, a year of employment seemed to be settled.

Starting August 6, he completed six days of training at the Seoul headquarters before being assigned to Busan. But as the temporary assignment drew to a close, during August 18?28, the academy did not proceed with the visa arrangements. Instead, it instructed him to report to Seoul.

 

II. “You Should Look for Another Teaching Job”

At a meeting on September 2, the academy told the instructor that he appeared better suited to general conversational English than to TESOL instruction. It also said it had asked a recruiter to look for another position for him. To the instructor, the message was unmistakable: his planned job at this academy was over.

He had not yet received the wages due for his temporary work, and he was worried about where he would live. He contacted a lawyer introduced by an acquaintance. The lawyer asked the academy to let him remain in its accommodation for another month. The parties then signed a written confirmation covering outstanding pay, hotel expenses and permission to stay free of charge in a company apartment in Seoul for one month.

That document became the heart of the dispute. The instructor believed it gave him time and resources to recover from an unexpected setback. The academy interpreted his signature as acceptance of a mutually agreed termination.

 

III. The First Ruling: Mutual Termination

On November 24, 2009, the instructor filed an unfair-dismissal petition. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on January 18, 2010. It noted that both parties had signed the confirmation, the academy had paid the settlement amount, and the instructor had stayed in its apartment for a month. It also considered his failure to return to work or immediately object and the fact that he had found another job.

Taken together, these circumstances led the first-instance commission to conclude that the parties had mutually terminated the employment agreement. If there was no dismissal, an unfair-dismissal claim could not succeed on that basis.

 

IV. The Appeal: What Did He Actually Agree To?

The instructor appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission on February 10, 2010. His central argument was straightforward: “I signed to settle my wages and housing arrangements?not to resign.”

The confirmation contained no express statement of resignation or agreement to end the employment relationship. He maintained that the lawyer had simply helped him secure temporary accommodation, not negotiated a resignation on his behalf. He explained that he had not promptly challenged the academy because he did not know Korea’s labor-relief procedures and could not initially afford representation. He later learned about the process through the Seoul Global Center.

His subsequent employment did not establish consent to resign either. He had begun working at a high school in Gyeonggi Province on November 9, 2009, to support himself. Accordingly, he also requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

 

V. The National Labor Relations Commission Reverses the Decision (2010-Buhae-122)

On April 22, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the initial ruling (Case No. 2010-Buhae-122). Its reasoning turned on the actual content of the document. A confirmation settling wages and accommodation arrangements did not establish that the instructor had agreed to resign.

The academy’s action was therefore treated as a dismissal. Because it had failed to give the required written notice stating the grounds and effective date of dismissal, the commission found the dismissal unfair. It also granted the instructor’s request for monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.

 

VI. The Practical Lesson

This case shows why the meaning of a signature depends on what the document says and the circumstances in which it was signed. Accepting outstanding wages or temporary accommodation does not, by itself, establish a voluntary resignation. An employer relying on mutual termination should be able to demonstrate the employee’s clear agreement to end the employment relationship.

When an employer dismisses an employee, it must comply with applicable procedural requirements, including written notice of the grounds and date of dismissal under Korean labor law. Finding another job to survive financially does not retrospectively turn an earlier dismissal into a voluntary departure.

The decisive question was not “Did he sign?” but “What did he agree to?” Employers should document any genuinely mutual separation clearly, while employees should check whether a settlement or acknowledgment contains language that also ends their employment.