Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Probationary Evaluation Score: 46)” (Unfair Dismissal 120)
- Date2026/01/17 04:14
- Read 240
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae3333 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.14 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee: The employment contract expressly provided for a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment: The worker claimed that a dismissal had already occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by way of recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025, …”
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assessed a case involving a probationary employee where the central issue was unfair dismissal, and, based on Commission practice and Labor Law Firm Law&’s advisory experience, summarizes key takeaways for managing probationary and training-period personnel. In particular, it reviews when refusal of regular employment based on a probationary evaluation is lawful, and clarifies the legal principles governing dismissal of probationary employees, which differ from those applicable to redundancy (collective) dismissals.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker joined the company under an employment contract that specified a probationary period and worked for a certain period. The employer then terminated the employment relationship by refusing regular employment on the basis of the worker’s probationary evaluation results. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that a dismissal had already occurred on 19 August 2025, while the employer argued that this was a lawful refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the employment contract, probationary evaluation materials, the circumstances of interviews and warnings, and the contents of written notices, and focused its analysis on: (i) whether the worker was a probationary employee, (ii) the date of refusal of regular employment, and (iii) whether the refusal of regular employment was justified in terms of grounds and procedure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employment contract specifies a probationary period for a probationary (trial) employee, does refusal of regular employment on the basis of the probationary evaluation constitute a dismissal and, if so, are the grounds and procedures sufficiently justified such that it does not amount to an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that: the employer had clearly established a probationary employment relationship by specifying a probationary period in the employment contract; from 19 to 21 August 2025 the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation; on 22 August 2025 the employer gave written notice stating that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025”; the worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment; the responsible director conducted two interviews with the worker, pointed out poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each evaluation item; and the employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
On this basis, the Commission held that the refusal of regular employment constituted a dismissal effected by exercise of the employer’s right to terminate as of 25 August 2025. However, because there were reasonable grounds based on an assessment of job suitability during the probationary period, and there were no procedural defects such as in the written notice, the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary or training period, an employment contract has already been formed, and refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal. Workers should be aware that they may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, dismissals of probationary employees are generally afforded a broader margin of justification than ordinary dismissals. If objective materials such as evaluation scores, records of interviews and warnings, and written notices do not clearly reveal arbitrariness or irrationality, the likelihood of obtaining relief may be low.
During the probationary evaluation process, it is advisable for workers to organize their performance and any points of criticism by email or similar means, and to keep records of the content of interviews, whether warnings were given, and how evaluation criteria were applied. Such records can be helpful in later challenging the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when setting a probationary or training period, it is important to specify the period and the purpose of probation in the employment contract and to manage these consistently with the rules of employment and HR regulations. Employers should establish probationary evaluation criteria in advance, record specific reasons for each item on the evaluation form, and, where poor performance persists, document interviews and warnings providing opportunities for improvement. Doing so will make it easier for the Labor Relations Commission to recognize the reasonableness of the evaluation and the propriety of the procedures.
In addition, when refusing regular employment, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment (dismissal) and the date of termination of the employment relationship. While, unlike redundancy (collective) dismissals, separate disciplinary procedures generally do not apply to dismissals of probationary employees, if the HR regulations require specific procedures such as a board resolution, those procedures must be strictly followed.
As in this case, where the Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer, employers should not be complacent merely because the term “probation” appears in the documents. Consistent management of the establishment of evaluation criteria, documentation of the evaluation process, and written notification procedures is essential in practice to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary employee
The employment contract specified a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment
The worker claimed that a dismissal had occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025.” Accordingly, it was found that the refusal of regular employment occurred on 25 August 2025.
C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment;
② Director Kim ○○ interviewed the worker twice before the probationary evaluation, warned of poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each probationary evaluation item, making it difficult to regard the evaluation results as arbitrary;
③ The employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, the grounds for refusal of regular employment were reasonable and there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary employee
The employment contract specified a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment
The worker claimed that a dismissal had occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025.” Accordingly, it was found that the refusal of regular employment occurred on 25 August 2025.
C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment;
② Director Kim ○○ interviewed the worker twice before the probationary evaluation, warned of poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each probationary evaluation item, making it difficult to regard the evaluation results as arbitrary;
③ The employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, the grounds for refusal of regular employment were reasonable and there were no procedural defects.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Fixed-Term Professional Position)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46), dismissal of probationary employee, performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Number of Regular Employees (Sales Office Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Probationary Evaluation Score: 46).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae3333 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.14 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee: The employment contract expressly provided for a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment: The worker claimed that a dismissal had already occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by way of recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025, …”
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assessed a case involving a probationary employee where the central issue was unfair dismissal, and, based on Commission practice and Labor Law Firm Law&’s advisory experience, summarizes key takeaways for managing probationary and training-period personnel. In particular, it reviews when refusal of regular employment based on a probationary evaluation is lawful, and clarifies the legal principles governing dismissal of probationary employees, which differ from those applicable to redundancy (collective) dismissals.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker joined the company under an employment contract that specified a probationary period and worked for a certain period. The employer then terminated the employment relationship by refusing regular employment on the basis of the worker’s probationary evaluation results. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that a dismissal had already occurred on 19 August 2025, while the employer argued that this was a lawful refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the employment contract, probationary evaluation materials, the circumstances of interviews and warnings, and the contents of written notices, and focused its analysis on: (i) whether the worker was a probationary employee, (ii) the date of refusal of regular employment, and (iii) whether the refusal of regular employment was justified in terms of grounds and procedure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employment contract specifies a probationary period for a probationary (trial) employee, does refusal of regular employment on the basis of the probationary evaluation constitute a dismissal and, if so, are the grounds and procedures sufficiently justified such that it does not amount to an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that: the employer had clearly established a probationary employment relationship by specifying a probationary period in the employment contract; from 19 to 21 August 2025 the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation; on 22 August 2025 the employer gave written notice stating that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025”; the worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment; the responsible director conducted two interviews with the worker, pointed out poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each evaluation item; and the employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
On this basis, the Commission held that the refusal of regular employment constituted a dismissal effected by exercise of the employer’s right to terminate as of 25 August 2025. However, because there were reasonable grounds based on an assessment of job suitability during the probationary period, and there were no procedural defects such as in the written notice, the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary or training period, an employment contract has already been formed, and refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal. Workers should be aware that they may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, dismissals of probationary employees are generally afforded a broader margin of justification than ordinary dismissals. If objective materials such as evaluation scores, records of interviews and warnings, and written notices do not clearly reveal arbitrariness or irrationality, the likelihood of obtaining relief may be low.
During the probationary evaluation process, it is advisable for workers to organize their performance and any points of criticism by email or similar means, and to keep records of the content of interviews, whether warnings were given, and how evaluation criteria were applied. Such records can be helpful in later challenging the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when setting a probationary or training period, it is important to specify the period and the purpose of probation in the employment contract and to manage these consistently with the rules of employment and HR regulations. Employers should establish probationary evaluation criteria in advance, record specific reasons for each item on the evaluation form, and, where poor performance persists, document interviews and warnings providing opportunities for improvement. Doing so will make it easier for the Labor Relations Commission to recognize the reasonableness of the evaluation and the propriety of the procedures.
In addition, when refusing regular employment, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment (dismissal) and the date of termination of the employment relationship. While, unlike redundancy (collective) dismissals, separate disciplinary procedures generally do not apply to dismissals of probationary employees, if the HR regulations require specific procedures such as a board resolution, those procedures must be strictly followed.
As in this case, where the Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer, employers should not be complacent merely because the term “probation” appears in the documents. Consistent management of the establishment of evaluation criteria, documentation of the evaluation process, and written notification procedures is essential in practice to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary employee
The employment contract specified a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment
The worker claimed that a dismissal had occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025.” Accordingly, it was found that the refusal of regular employment occurred on 25 August 2025.
C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment;
② Director Kim ○○ interviewed the worker twice before the probationary evaluation, warned of poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each probationary evaluation item, making it difficult to regard the evaluation results as arbitrary;
③ The employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, the grounds for refusal of regular employment were reasonable and there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary employee
The employment contract specified a probationary period, and there was no dispute between the parties that the worker was a probationary employee.
B. Date of refusal of regular employment
The worker claimed that a dismissal had occurred on 19 August 2025. However, from 19 to 21 August 2025, the employer merely expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship by recommended resignation, and ultimately, on 22 August 2025, notified in writing that “the employment relationship will terminate on 25 August 2025.” Accordingly, it was found that the refusal of regular employment occurred on 25 August 2025.
C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The worker received a score of 46 on the probationary evaluation, which fell short of the threshold for regular employment;
② Director Kim ○○ interviewed the worker twice before the probationary evaluation, warned of poor job performance, urged improvement, and recorded specific reasons for each probationary evaluation item, making it difficult to regard the evaluation results as arbitrary;
③ The employer provided written notice of the grounds for refusal of regular employment and the date of termination of the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, the grounds for refusal of regular employment were reasonable and there were no procedural defects.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Fixed-Term Professional Position)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46), dismissal of probationary employee, performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Number of Regular Employees (Sales Office Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation score: 46) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Probationary Evaluation Score: 46).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
