Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position)” (Unfair Dismissal 365)
- Date2026/04/12 04:04
- Read 175
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position).”
Adjudicating Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1063 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working under a fixed-term employment contract submitted a resignation and then newly joined the company as a regular employee, entering into an employment contract on a probationary (training) basis. At the end of the probationary period, regular employment was refused, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether the refusal to grant regular employment constituted an unfair dismissal. Based on the relevant legal principles and precedents organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission reaffirmed the standards for determining the legitimacy of probationary dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether an employee who newly joins as a regular employee after the end of a fixed-term employment contract can be regarded as a probationary employee, and (ii) whether the refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee can be evaluated as a dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee had voluntarily submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then entered into a separate employment contract as a regular employee, and that the regular employment contract and personnel regulations expressly stated the intent that “if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated.” In light of these factors, the panel held that a probationary employment contract had been formed between the parties and that the employee qualified as a probationary employee.
The panel further found that the employee’s alleged work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible, that it was difficult to conclude that objectivity and fairness were sufficiently ensured in the standards and procedures of the probationary evaluation, and that conducting only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and then proceeding directly to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement or guidance appeared to be an excessive measure by social norms.
Accordingly, the panel held that, even if the dismissal in this case is viewed as the exercise of a termination right with respect to a probationary employee, it is difficult to recognize its legitimacy, and that the refusal to grant regular employment lacked reasonable grounds and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether the term used is “training” or “probation,” a refusal to grant regular employment may in substance be evaluated as a dismissal. If such refusal loses its reasonableness under social norms, the employee may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
In particular, where the probationary evaluation was conducted in a merely formal or one-off manner, or where no specific evaluation criteria, feedback, or opportunity for improvement were provided and the employee suddenly received notice of dismissal, the employee should actively challenge the lack of objectivity and fairness in the evaluation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary or training system, the employer should clearly stipulate in the employment contract, rules of employment, and personnel regulations the probationary period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and should establish procedures to sufficiently notify employees of these matters.
Furthermore, even though the employer’s right to terminate a probationary employee is recognized more broadly than in the case of ordinary dismissal, where there has been no repeated and specific guidance and warning, no opportunity for improvement, and no accumulation of objective evaluation materials, a one-off evaluation followed by dismissal carries a high risk of being found to be an unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission. HR and labor-management personnel should pay particular attention to this point.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employee’s work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible; the evaluation lacked objectivity and fairness; and the employer conducted only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and proceeded to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement. As this is excessive by social norms, it is difficult to find that reasonable grounds existed for the refusal to grant regular employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employee’s work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible; the evaluation lacked objectivity and fairness; and the employer conducted only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and proceeded to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement. As this is excessive by social norms, it is difficult to find that reasonable grounds existed for the refusal to grant regular employment. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position), probationary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Fixed-Term Call Center Employee)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position).”
Adjudicating Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1063 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working under a fixed-term employment contract submitted a resignation and then newly joined the company as a regular employee, entering into an employment contract on a probationary (training) basis. At the end of the probationary period, regular employment was refused, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether the refusal to grant regular employment constituted an unfair dismissal. Based on the relevant legal principles and precedents organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission reaffirmed the standards for determining the legitimacy of probationary dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether an employee who newly joins as a regular employee after the end of a fixed-term employment contract can be regarded as a probationary employee, and (ii) whether the refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee can be evaluated as a dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee had voluntarily submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then entered into a separate employment contract as a regular employee, and that the regular employment contract and personnel regulations expressly stated the intent that “if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated.” In light of these factors, the panel held that a probationary employment contract had been formed between the parties and that the employee qualified as a probationary employee.
The panel further found that the employee’s alleged work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible, that it was difficult to conclude that objectivity and fairness were sufficiently ensured in the standards and procedures of the probationary evaluation, and that conducting only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and then proceeding directly to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement or guidance appeared to be an excessive measure by social norms.
Accordingly, the panel held that, even if the dismissal in this case is viewed as the exercise of a termination right with respect to a probationary employee, it is difficult to recognize its legitimacy, and that the refusal to grant regular employment lacked reasonable grounds and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether the term used is “training” or “probation,” a refusal to grant regular employment may in substance be evaluated as a dismissal. If such refusal loses its reasonableness under social norms, the employee may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
In particular, where the probationary evaluation was conducted in a merely formal or one-off manner, or where no specific evaluation criteria, feedback, or opportunity for improvement were provided and the employee suddenly received notice of dismissal, the employee should actively challenge the lack of objectivity and fairness in the evaluation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary or training system, the employer should clearly stipulate in the employment contract, rules of employment, and personnel regulations the probationary period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and should establish procedures to sufficiently notify employees of these matters.
Furthermore, even though the employer’s right to terminate a probationary employee is recognized more broadly than in the case of ordinary dismissal, where there has been no repeated and specific guidance and warning, no opportunity for improvement, and no accumulation of objective evaluation materials, a one-off evaluation followed by dismissal carries a high risk of being found to be an unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission. HR and labor-management personnel should pay particular attention to this point.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employee’s work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible; the evaluation lacked objectivity and fairness; and the employer conducted only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and proceeded to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement. As this is excessive by social norms, it is difficult to find that reasonable grounds existed for the refusal to grant regular employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
As the employee submitted a resignation from the fixed-term employment contract and then joined the company as a regular employee under a new employment contract, each must be regarded as a separate employment relationship. In addition, under the contents of the regular employment contract and the personnel regulations, the parties are deemed to have entered into a probationary employment contract providing that, if regular employment is found to be inappropriate, the employment contract will be terminated in the future. Accordingly, the employee falls under the category of a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employee’s work-related negligence was not so serious as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible; the evaluation lacked objectivity and fairness; and the employer conducted only a single performance evaluation immediately before the end of the probationary period and proceeded to dismissal without any opportunity for improvement. As this is excessive by social norms, it is difficult to find that reasonable grounds existed for the refusal to grant regular employment. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position), probationary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Fixed-Term Call Center Employee)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (conversion to regular position) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
