Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Expectation Right to Conversion to an Indefinite-Term Contract (Introduction of 360-Degree Evaluation)” (Unfair Dismissal 252)
- Date2026/03/03 04:09
- Read 205
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of the “expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a fixed-term employee who worked as a professional counselor at a university Human Rights Center and Center for Students with Disabilities, and who applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after failing the screening for conversion to an indefinite-term position. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission viewed the core premise as whether the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract, in light of the Rules of Employment and the recruitment announcement, the regular and continuous nature of the duties, and the history of contract renewal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the Rules of Employment and the recruitment announcement expressly state the possibility of conversion to an indefinite-term contract, whether the employer’s refusal to convert, based on the results of a 360-degree evaluation introduced without the consent of a majority of employees, constitutes unfair dismissal (refusal to renew) against an employee who holds an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel noted that the Rules of Employment for indefinite-term employees and the recruitment announcement stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.”; that the work of a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities is regular and continuous in nature; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years.
On this basis, the panel held that the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position.
The panel further found that the employee’s low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions, yet it was implemented without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract, thereby violating the procedural requirements of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act; and that all three evaluators had no experience working with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective.
On these grounds, the panel held that this dismissal measure—i.e., the refusal to convert—lacked reasonable cause and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees may acquire an “expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract” through the Rules of Employment, recruitment announcements, and a pattern of repeated renewals. Once such an expectation right is formed, the employer cannot refuse conversion without reasonable cause, and such refusal can be challenged in the same way as an unfair dismissal.
In particular, where a newly introduced personnel evaluation or 360-degree evaluation system changes working conditions to the employee’s detriment without going through the required consent procedures, or where the actual evaluation process is not fair and objective, employees should actively consider seeking relief from the Labor Relations Commission against a refusal to convert based on such results.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When specifying the basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract for fixed-term employees in the Rules of Employment, recruitment announcements, etc., employers should design their systems on the premise that this, in itself, may create an expectation right to conversion.
In addition, when introducing or amending 360-degree evaluation or personnel evaluation systems that directly affect whether an employee will be converted to an indefinite-term contract, employers must strictly comply with the procedures under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, including obtaining the consent of a majority of employees. They should also refine the criteria and operation methods so that evaluations are conducted fairly and objectively by appropriate evaluators—such as supervisors and colleagues who have actually worked with the employee.
This Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission decision reconfirms that, where an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract is recognized, the legal principles restricting dismissal are analogously applied to refusals to convert, such that a level of reasonable cause and lawful procedure similar to that required for collective redundancies is demanded. It is therefore a case that both employees and employers should carefully examine when dealing with unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes. You are encouraged to consult fully with Labor Law Firm Law&, which has extensive practical experience before the Labor Relations Commissions.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position is recognized.
B. Whether there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position
In the employee’s case, it was confirmed that her low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Given that the 360-degree evaluation results adversely affected the employee’s renewal and led to the refusal to renew the indefinite-term contract, the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions. Nevertheless, the 360-degree evaluation system was introduced without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Refusing conversion based on this system and its results therefore violated Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act (Procedures for Drawing Up and Amending Rules of Employment) and was unlawful and unfair. Furthermore, none of the three evaluators had worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective. In light of these factors, it cannot be said that there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position is recognized.
B. Whether there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position
In the employee’s case, it was confirmed that her low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Given that the 360-degree evaluation results adversely affected the employee’s renewal and led to the refusal to renew the indefinite-term contract, the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions. Nevertheless, the 360-degree evaluation system was introduced without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Refusing conversion based on this system and its results therefore violated Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act (Procedures for Drawing Up and Amending Rules of Employment) and was unlawful and unfair. Furthermore, none of the three evaluators had worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective. In light of these factors, it cannot be said that there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Repeated Reinstatement Orders)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, personnel 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Repeated Reinstatement Orders)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation) in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation Right to Conversion to an Indefinite-Term Contract (Introduction of 360-Degree Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of the “expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a fixed-term employee who worked as a professional counselor at a university Human Rights Center and Center for Students with Disabilities, and who applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after failing the screening for conversion to an indefinite-term position. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission viewed the core premise as whether the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract, in light of the Rules of Employment and the recruitment announcement, the regular and continuous nature of the duties, and the history of contract renewal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the Rules of Employment and the recruitment announcement expressly state the possibility of conversion to an indefinite-term contract, whether the employer’s refusal to convert, based on the results of a 360-degree evaluation introduced without the consent of a majority of employees, constitutes unfair dismissal (refusal to renew) against an employee who holds an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel noted that the Rules of Employment for indefinite-term employees and the recruitment announcement stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.”; that the work of a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities is regular and continuous in nature; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years.
On this basis, the panel held that the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position.
The panel further found that the employee’s low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions, yet it was implemented without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract, thereby violating the procedural requirements of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act; and that all three evaluators had no experience working with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective.
On these grounds, the panel held that this dismissal measure—i.e., the refusal to convert—lacked reasonable cause and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees may acquire an “expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract” through the Rules of Employment, recruitment announcements, and a pattern of repeated renewals. Once such an expectation right is formed, the employer cannot refuse conversion without reasonable cause, and such refusal can be challenged in the same way as an unfair dismissal.
In particular, where a newly introduced personnel evaluation or 360-degree evaluation system changes working conditions to the employee’s detriment without going through the required consent procedures, or where the actual evaluation process is not fair and objective, employees should actively consider seeking relief from the Labor Relations Commission against a refusal to convert based on such results.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When specifying the basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract for fixed-term employees in the Rules of Employment, recruitment announcements, etc., employers should design their systems on the premise that this, in itself, may create an expectation right to conversion.
In addition, when introducing or amending 360-degree evaluation or personnel evaluation systems that directly affect whether an employee will be converted to an indefinite-term contract, employers must strictly comply with the procedures under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, including obtaining the consent of a majority of employees. They should also refine the criteria and operation methods so that evaluations are conducted fairly and objectively by appropriate evaluators—such as supervisors and colleagues who have actually worked with the employee.
This Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission decision reconfirms that, where an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract is recognized, the legal principles restricting dismissal are analogously applied to refusals to convert, such that a level of reasonable cause and lawful procedure similar to that required for collective redundancies is demanded. It is therefore a case that both employees and employers should carefully examine when dealing with unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes. You are encouraged to consult fully with Labor Law Firm Law&, which has extensive practical experience before the Labor Relations Commissions.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position is recognized.
B. Whether there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position
In the employee’s case, it was confirmed that her low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Given that the 360-degree evaluation results adversely affected the employee’s renewal and led to the refusal to renew the indefinite-term contract, the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions. Nevertheless, the 360-degree evaluation system was introduced without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Refusing conversion based on this system and its results therefore violated Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act (Procedures for Drawing Up and Amending Rules of Employment) and was unlawful and unfair. Furthermore, none of the three evaluators had worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective. In light of these factors, it cannot be said that there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position
Given that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Indefinite-Term Employees and the recruitment announcement dated 14 June 2023 expressly stated that “conversion to an indefinite-term contract is possible after screening based on work attitude, performance evaluation, etc.,” thereby establishing a regulatory basis for conversion to an indefinite-term contract; that the employee’s work as a professional counselor at the Human Rights Center and the Center for Students with Disabilities constituted regular and continuous duties; and that the employee’s contract had been renewed once and she had worked for two years in total, an expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term position is recognized.
B. Whether there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position
In the employee’s case, it was confirmed that her low 360-degree evaluation score was the main reason for the resolution not to agree to conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Given that the 360-degree evaluation results adversely affected the employee’s renewal and led to the refusal to renew the indefinite-term contract, the introduction of the 360-degree evaluation constituted a disadvantageous change to working conditions. Nevertheless, the 360-degree evaluation system was introduced without obtaining the consent of a majority of employees at the time of conversion to an indefinite-term contract. Refusing conversion based on this system and its results therefore violated Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act (Procedures for Drawing Up and Amending Rules of Employment) and was unlawful and unfair. Furthermore, none of the three evaluators had worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their assessment of her work performance, job competence, and work attitude as fair and objective. In light of these factors, it cannot be said that there was reasonable cause for refusing conversion to an indefinite-term position. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Repeated Reinstatement Orders)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, personnel 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Repeated Reinstatement Orders)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the expectation right to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (introduction of 360-degree evaluation) in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation Right to Conversion to an Indefinite-Term Contract (Introduction of 360-Degree Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
