SlowcoachWhen we hear that someone lost their job because of borderline intellectual functioning, it can feel as though the cause has been identified. But that one sentence does not tell us enough about what actually happened.
“I was fired because of borderline intellectual functioning” is not enough to judge either a person's ability or whether the dismissal was lawful.
First, we need to establish how the employment relationship ended. We can then separate the moments when work became difficult and distinguish legal questions such as notice of dismissal and remedies for unfair dismissal.
This article was written after checking the Korean Labor Standards Act and Ministry of Employment and Labor guidance in force on 24 August 2026. It is not legal advice determining the outcome of an individual case. The scene below is a fictional workplace example intended to explain these distinctions.
Junho is in his fourth month working for an online prepared side-dish shop, usually handling product labels and packing. During a promotional week, checking order changes, printing shipping labels and passing on customer enquiries are all added at once. The day after two packing errors, his manager sends a message: “You don't need to come in from tomorrow.” Startled, Junho replies, “Okay.” There is no paper notice, and he has not checked the contract's end date. At home, Junho says, “I was fired because of my borderline intellectual functioning.”
1. What different questions are hidden in “I was fired”?
At least four questions are mixed together in this scene.
The first is how the employment relationship actually ended. We need to establish whether the company unilaterally told him not to come in, suggested that he resign and received his agreement, or whether a fixed contract term ended.
The second is what happened during the work. Not knowing how to pack, becoming stuck while handling added order changes and shipping labels simultaneously, and having no clear person or rule for reporting an error are different problems.
The third is the company's reason and procedure for ending the relationship. The contract, messages and the reason given by the company need to be brought together.
The fourth is which laws and consultation routes apply. The provisions and procedures to check may differ according to the period of continuous employment, workplace size and method of notification.
Without this information, a causal link between a diagnosis and dismissal cannot be established. Nor can a brief reply such as “Okay,” by itself, legally establish agreement to voluntary resignation.
2. Dismissal, resignation at the employer's suggestion, or expiry of a fixed-term contract?
It is safer to begin with a chronological account rather than attach a label immediately.
Separate whether the company or employer unilaterally said “Don't come in tomorrow,” suggested resignation and awaited a reply, reached the contract's agreed end date, or whether the worker first said they wanted to leave. If this is still unclear, write “How employment ended needs to be checked” rather than rushing to fill in “dismissal” or “voluntary resignation.”
Collect the following materials in one place.
- Employment contract and start date
- Scheduled contract end date
- Date of notification and last working day
- Texts, messages, emails and written notices
- The reason the company gave for ending employment
- Whether a resignation letter was written or submitted
- Payslips and work schedules
This record is not a table for deciding by yourself who was right. It prepares the questions to check in an official consultation.
3. Can a difficult moment at work be explained by individual ability alone?
Knowing that Junho made packing errors is different from knowing what caused them. Comparing ordinary work with the promotional week can show where demands changed: understanding orders, maintaining task sequence, switching unexpectedly, reporting exceptions, passing on customer enquiries or checking completion.
Korea's National Competency Standards, or NCS, divide jobs into competency units and unit elements, alongside performance criteria, knowledge, skills, attitudes, scope of application and working situations.[4] They cannot be used to diagnose an individual or decide a dismissal case, but they can help turn “They couldn't do the job” into observable questions.
A 2026 Korean qualitative study analysed material from 4 young adults with borderline intellectual functioning who participated in a parent-accompanied internship, together with their parents, job coaches and workplace representatives. Changes were reported in the context of repeated instruction, patient relationships, routes for asking for help and long-term job coaching. Support remained necessary for precise or complex tasks and unexpected situations.[5]
Because this was a qualitative study of a small, specific programme, its findings cannot be generalised to everyone or interpreted as evidence that dismissal was prevented. It does, however, raise the question of examining work performance within an environment of relationships, training and ways to ask for help, rather than through individual effort alone.
4. Does less than 3 months of employment mean immediate dismissal is acceptable?
Article 26 of the Korean Labor Standards Act in force when this article was written generally requires an employer dismissing a worker to give 30 days' notice or, otherwise, pay at least 30 days' ordinary wages.[1]
One exception concerns workers whose continuous employment has lasted less than 3 months. The Article 26 exception is based on the actual period of continuous employment, not the company's use of the label “probation.” Article 35, which previously contained exceptions to notice of dismissal, has been deleted; the current exception for less than 3 months is within Article 26.
Less than 3 months of continuous employment may mean an exception to the notice requirement. It does not mean that any dismissal is justified.
Schedule 1 to the Enforcement Decree generally applies Article 26 to workplaces ordinarily employing 4 or fewer workers as well.[2] However, the business arrangement and its specific applicability must be checked. The number of ordinarily employed workers is not simply the number who came to work on the day of dismissal. If it is unknown, ask during a consultation rather than guess.
5. Why separate notice of dismissal from remedies for unfair dismissal?
Notice, reasons for dismissal and remedies are different questions.
“Notice of dismissal” concerns 30 days' advance notification or payment in lieu of notice. “Reasons for dismissal” concerns the employer's stated reasons, their justification and, where applicable, written notification. “Remedies” concerns workplace size, application deadlines and the competent authority.
Giving 30 days' notice does not make the reason for dismissal justified. Falling within the exception for less than 3 months does not remove other legal questions either.
Official guidance from Korea's Ministry of Employment and Labor and National Labor Relations Commission explains that, for eligible cases, an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal should be made to the Labor Relations Commission with jurisdiction over the workplace within 3 months of the dismissal.[3] The Commission's guidance identifies workplaces ordinarily employing 5 or more workers as its scope. For workplaces with 4 or fewer, the application of Article 26 and the available remedy routes therefore need to be checked separately.[2]
The Ministry of Employment and Labor's customer consultation centre, 1350, is a place to ask which provisions and authorities to check. It does not decide whether a particular dismissal was unfair. It can first direct you to the appropriate contact for wages or payment in lieu of notice, a Labor Relations Commission remedy, or another legal procedure.
6. What should we put on one page before a consultation?
Divide one sheet into three areas to make a “one-page record for revisiting how the job ended.”
First, “facts about the end of employment.”
- Start date and scheduled contract end date
- Date of notification and last working day
- Who said what first
- Whether there is a contract, messages, a notice or a resignation letter
- Period of continuous employment
- Number of ordinarily employed workers: if unknown, “Unknown / consultation needed”
Second, “what happened during the actual work.”
- Assigned tasks and criteria for completion
- The precise moment when the problem occurred
- Changes from normal in information, speed, staffing or exceptions
- Training, completed examples and interim checks provided
- Help I asked for or tried to obtain
- Whether it happened repeatedly under the same conditions
Third, “questions for an official organisation.”
- What materials are needed to establish how employment ended?
- How does the notice-of-dismissal requirement apply to my situation?
- How can I check the number of ordinarily employed workers?
- How can I check eligibility and the deadline for a Labor Relations Commission remedy?
- Where should I ask about wages or payment in lieu of notice?
This record is neither a diagnostic checklist nor a legal decision form. It is a tool for organising facts in preparation for an official consultation.
After the consultation, add “date and time / organisation consulted / answers confirmed / next action.”
7. What should we check first about the next job?
Preparing for the next job calls for a record of which tasks and conditions caused difficulty, rather than a conclusion that “I can't work.”
Recurring conditions in the one-page record can be turned into questions about specific situations at the next workplace.
- During promotional periods, does the person packing also handle order changes and pass on enquiries?
- If I find a label mismatch, whom should I report to after stopping the task?
- Will there be time after the first three shifts to review errors and training together?
Slowcoach cannot yet say that this one-page record or step-by-step explanations have prevented dismissal or improved job retention. Our current hypothesis is that revisiting the end of a job in terms of specific tasks and support conditions may make the next consultation and workplace conversation clearer. Any effect needs separate testing in real workplaces.
The previous article considered looking at actual tasks rather than job titles.
Does borderline intellectual functioning mean a simple job is the right fit? Looking at actual tasks rather than job titles
https://blog.naver.com/samuel_oh_/224382668780
You can also read about defining a first action and a check-in point when starting work.
When you have heard the work instruction but cannot get started: defining the first action
https://blog.naver.com/samuel_oh_/224381469799
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsEfInfoP.do?lsiSeq=283457
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsId=003058
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsLinkCommonInfo.do?chrClsCd=010202&lspttninfSeq=70859
https://www.moel.go.kr/policyitrd/policyItrdView.do?policy_itrd_sn=106
https://1350.moel.go.kr/home/hp/main/main.do
https://nlrc.go.kr/nlrc/minwon/CmmnEventRequest/EltrDlivPrivacy.do