When a Foreign Golf Coach Was Replaced Without Warning — and Settled Instead of Fighting

A foreign golf coach had worked for a company running golf academies — one at an indoor driving range in Gangnam, Seoul, and another at a course in Cheonan — for two years already, and had just renewed his contract for two more years starting May 2009. He worked three days a week at each location. Around the same time, his girlfriend moved to Seoul to live with him.

Then the company decided to close the Gangnam location and open a new academy near Wonju, at a place called Oak Valley. They ordered him to transfer there full time. He pushed back, wanting to keep his existing three-days-here, three-days-there arrangement, since that was what his current contract described. The company initially insisted he move full time to Oak Valley, warning they would end his contract otherwise. But eventually, they backed down and verbally agreed to let him keep splitting his time between Seoul and Oak Valley, three days each.

He kept working under that verbal arrangement — until October, when, without warning, the company hired a new coach to take over his position. They offered him part-time work instead. He said no. And that is when they told him his employment would end on November 30.

Naturally, the company told a different story. According to them, he had voluntarily agreed to work full time at Oak Valley when the contract was renewed back in May, they had already hired his replacement based on that understanding, and when he later refused to move there, he was the one who effectively resigned — not them who dismissed him.

This is one of those classic "he said, they said" situations that many of us kababayan know all too well. Verbal promises made in the heat of a workplace disagreement are hard to prove later. Was there really a mutual agreement to work a split schedule? Was he actually told clearly that full relocation was mandatory from the start? The paperwork and the memories did not line up.

What I find genuinely instructive about this case is not who was "right," but how it was resolved. Rather than pushing all the way through to a final Commission ruling — which could have gone either way, and which the Commission itself suggested might end unfavorably for either side — both parties accepted the chairman's suggestion to negotiate a settlement instead.

During those negotiations, an interesting legal question came up: does severance pay even apply to a foreign golf coach? The company argued no, saying they had never paid severance to any golf coach before, and that if they were required to, they would simply restructure future salaries to already account for it. The employee argued that Korea's Labor Standards Act applies to all employees "regardless of nationality or salary" as long as they serve one year or more — a principle every one of us should know and remember.

In the end, they settled. The company agreed to pay $20,625 US dollars before tax, described as compensation in lieu of early retirement allowance, including severance. Both sides signed a formal Agreement on Settlement, agreed the employment ended by mutual agreement as of November 30, 2009, and promised not to pursue any further civil, criminal, or administrative action against each other.

The attorney who represented the coach reflected afterward that a little more communication on both sides — the company explaining its relocation reasoning more clearly, the employee perhaps giving the move more consideration before conflict escalated — might have avoided the dismissal dispute entirely. But he also said something I think is worth remembering: a peaceful settlement, reached without real damage to either side, can be the most desirable outcome of all.

I share this with you, kababayan, because I know many of us are afraid of confrontation, afraid that fighting for our rights means burning every bridge or dragging things through endless hearings. This case shows there is a middle path. The Labor Relations Commission is not only there to hand down harsh rulings — it can also help both sides find fair, face-saving compensation without a long drawn-out fight. And remember what that employee correctly argued: severance pay under Korean labor law does not depend on your nationality. If you have served one year or more, that protection is yours too.

Ingat po, at kung sakaling may ganitong sitwasyon kayo balang araw, alamin ninyo na may mga paraan para makipag-ayos nang patas, hindi lang laban hanggang dulo.

About the Author

English Instructor in South Korea | 22 Years of Teaching Experience

Majella Pagayon is the founder of Pinoy Sarang, a community platform dedicated to helping Filipinos navigate life, work, education, and immigration in South Korea. She regularly writes practical guides, safety tips, and educational resources for Filipinos living and working abroad.