Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Status as Probationary Employee (Insufficient Training of Probationary Staff)” (Unfair Dismissal 313)
- Date2026/03/24 04:13
- Read 193
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “status as a probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9117 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee.
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal heard by the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the employer treated the employment of a new hire as terminated during a purported probationary period on the grounds of failure to meet performance standards. The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether this employee qualified as a probationary employee, and whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (contract termination) were justified. The case is closely related to types of disputes frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&.
In this case, the Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claims and found the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in circumstances where neither the employment contract nor the job posting specifies probation or a probationary period, the employee can be regarded as a probationary employee, and whether the employer’s action of giving notice of “contract termination” during the probationary period without any separate job training constitutes a justified dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that neither the employment contract nor the job posting contains any express reference to probation or a probationary period, that there is no evidence that the employer informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, and that, in general, probationary systems are premised on a specified period and evaluation method set out in rules of employment, recruitment documents, interview sheets, etc., whereas no such circumstances are evident here.
On this basis, the panel held that it is difficult to regard the employee in this case as a probationary employee.
Furthermore, even assuming that the employee was a new hire in a probationary period, the panel found that the employer appears to have provided virtually no job training or guidance and instead immediately took issue with work performance alone; that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault but are also related to the employer’s lack of training and support and to organizational management issues; and that the employer terminated the employment relationship without providing written notice stating the reasons and timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case lacked just cause and was also seriously defective in procedure, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check how any probationary period and evaluation method are described in the employment contract, job posting, and rules of employment agreed at the time of hiring. The mere label of “probation” does not make dismissal easily permissible. If the employer has notified you of contract termination on the basis of performance alone without providing sufficient training or guidance, you should consider seeking relief from the Labor Relations Commission to examine whether elements of unfair dismissal exist in both the grounds and the procedure.
If you received notice of dismissal or contract termination only verbally, you should preserve as much information as possible about whether written notice was given and about the contents of the notice (reasons and timing), for example through notes or recordings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to operate a probationary system, you must clearly set out the probationary period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment in the rules of employment, employment contracts, and job postings, and you must retain records showing that job performance evaluations were actually conducted. If you simply use the label “probation” and repeatedly terminate contracts without a training and evaluation framework, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to apply the same strict standards as for dismissal of regular employees and to find the dismissal unfair.
In addition, even during probation, the basic requirements of just cause under Article 23 and the obligation of written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act apply. You should therefore provide written notice setting out the grounds for dismissal in specific terms, and establish personnel and labor management systems that allow you to objectively prove the course of training and guidance provided and the details of any requests for improvement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Although the employee in this case was a new hire during a probationary period, the employer appears to have provided little to no job training to the employee, and, considering that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault, it is difficult to find that there was just cause for dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer terminated the employment relationship without written notice, there is a procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Although the employee in this case was a new hire during a probationary period, the employer appears to have provided little to no job training to the employee, and, considering that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault, it is difficult to find that there was just cause for dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer terminated the employment relationship without written notice, there is a procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-existence of Expectation of Renewal (Security Guard on Fixed-term Contract After Mandatory Retirement)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, status as probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff), dismissal during probation, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-existence of Expectation of Renewal (Security Guard on Fixed-term Contract After Mandatory Retirement)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to status as probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff) at “List of Decisions Related to Status as Probationary Employee (Insufficient Training of Probationary Staff).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “status as a probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9117 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee.
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal heard by the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the employer treated the employment of a new hire as terminated during a purported probationary period on the grounds of failure to meet performance standards. The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether this employee qualified as a probationary employee, and whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (contract termination) were justified. The case is closely related to types of disputes frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&.
In this case, the Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claims and found the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in circumstances where neither the employment contract nor the job posting specifies probation or a probationary period, the employee can be regarded as a probationary employee, and whether the employer’s action of giving notice of “contract termination” during the probationary period without any separate job training constitutes a justified dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that neither the employment contract nor the job posting contains any express reference to probation or a probationary period, that there is no evidence that the employer informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, and that, in general, probationary systems are premised on a specified period and evaluation method set out in rules of employment, recruitment documents, interview sheets, etc., whereas no such circumstances are evident here.
On this basis, the panel held that it is difficult to regard the employee in this case as a probationary employee.
Furthermore, even assuming that the employee was a new hire in a probationary period, the panel found that the employer appears to have provided virtually no job training or guidance and instead immediately took issue with work performance alone; that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault but are also related to the employer’s lack of training and support and to organizational management issues; and that the employer terminated the employment relationship without providing written notice stating the reasons and timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case lacked just cause and was also seriously defective in procedure, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check how any probationary period and evaluation method are described in the employment contract, job posting, and rules of employment agreed at the time of hiring. The mere label of “probation” does not make dismissal easily permissible. If the employer has notified you of contract termination on the basis of performance alone without providing sufficient training or guidance, you should consider seeking relief from the Labor Relations Commission to examine whether elements of unfair dismissal exist in both the grounds and the procedure.
If you received notice of dismissal or contract termination only verbally, you should preserve as much information as possible about whether written notice was given and about the contents of the notice (reasons and timing), for example through notes or recordings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to operate a probationary system, you must clearly set out the probationary period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment in the rules of employment, employment contracts, and job postings, and you must retain records showing that job performance evaluations were actually conducted. If you simply use the label “probation” and repeatedly terminate contracts without a training and evaluation framework, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to apply the same strict standards as for dismissal of regular employees and to find the dismissal unfair.
In addition, even during probation, the basic requirements of just cause under Article 23 and the obligation of written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act apply. You should therefore provide written notice setting out the grounds for dismissal in specific terms, and establish personnel and labor management systems that allow you to objectively prove the course of training and guidance provided and the details of any requests for improvement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Although the employee in this case was a new hire during a probationary period, the employer appears to have provided little to no job training to the employee, and, considering that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault, it is difficult to find that there was just cause for dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer terminated the employment relationship without written notice, there is a procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employee in this case qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employment contract for the employee in this case contains no wording related to probation, that no wording related to probation can be found in the job posting, and that there is no evidence that the employer in this case informed the employee that a job performance evaluation for probationary staff existed or notified the employee of any such result, it is reasonable to conclude that the employee in this case does not qualify as a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Although the employee in this case was a new hire during a probationary period, the employer appears to have provided little to no job training to the employee, and, considering that the reasons stated in the contract termination notice do not appear to be attributable solely to the employee’s fault, it is difficult to find that there was just cause for dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer terminated the employment relationship without written notice, there is a procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-existence of Expectation of Renewal (Security Guard on Fixed-term Contract After Mandatory Retirement)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, status as probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff), dismissal during probation, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-existence of Expectation of Renewal (Security Guard on Fixed-term Contract After Mandatory Retirement)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to status as probationary employee (insufficient training of probationary staff) at “List of Decisions Related to Status as Probationary Employee (Insufficient Training of Probationary Staff).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
