Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Dismissal (Comprehensive Recording of Colleagues · Police Report)” (Unfair Dismissal 371)
- Date2026/04/14 04:04
- Read 166
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1137 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee was dismissed during the probationary period on the grounds of work performance evaluations, poor attendance, and conduct such as continuously recording and filming colleagues’ words and behavior, and reporting an in‑house contact accident to the police. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined: (i) whether the conduct fell within the grounds for dismissal under the Rules of Employment, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) imposed on a probationary employee, and (iii) the lawfulness of the dismissal procedures, including the convening of a personnel committee and written notice.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, under the Labor Standards Act, the employer’s action of dismissing a probationary employee—who had been evaluated as having problems with work ability and work attitude during the probationary period—based on those evaluations together with the employee’s comprehensive recording/filming of colleagues and reporting of an in‑house accident to the police, can be regarded as a just cause dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel found that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the employer’s conclusion that it was no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship, in light of: (i) the employee’s failure to improve despite multiple warnings about work performance during the probationary period; (ii) the fact that the employee received a D grade, indicating difficulty in regular employment, in both probationary evaluations; (iii) the employee’s relatively frequent absences compared to other employees, evidencing poor work attitude; and (iv) the employee’s conduct of continuously recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours and immediately reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby negatively affecting the company’s image.
The Commission also found the dismissal procedures lawful, given that the employer convened a personnel committee, afforded the employee an opportunity to attend and explain, and, following the committee’s resolution to dismiss, notified the employee of the dismissal in writing. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal but a just dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a trial or probationary period, dismissal is not completely at the employer’s free discretion. For a dismissal based on negative evaluations of work ability or work attitude to be recognized as just, there must be objective and reasonable grounds, and the dismissal must be considered appropriate under social norms.
However, because the employer’s right to terminate is recognized somewhat more broadly during the probationary period, employees should be careful from the outset of probation to prevent unfavorable circumstances—such as repeated work‑related warnings, low evaluation grades, and frequent absences—from accumulating. It is advisable to clearly document efforts to improve by actively seeking feedback and responding to it.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
Even for dismissals during a trial or probationary period, employers should establish in advance evaluation criteria based on the Rules of Employment and personnel regulations, and should actually document the evaluation process and the process of pointing out and guiding deficiencies in accordance with those criteria.
In particular, where there are circumstances that seriously disrupt organizational order—such as continuous recording of colleagues or excessive externalization of disputes (e.g., police reports)—the employer should clearly investigate and record the facts, and faithfully comply with procedures such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and issuing written notice of dismissal. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the dismissal’s legitimacy before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in unfair dismissal disputes of this type arising during the probationary period, it is important to accurately understand the legal principle that objective rationality and appropriateness under social norms are required even for trial/probationary dismissals, and to systematically prepare evaluation materials, records of guidance, and documentation of procedural compliance in line with that principle, in cooperation with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, considering the employee’s conduct of recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours, and reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby damaging the company’s image, it appears difficult to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of dismissal procedures
The employer convened a personnel committee, at which the employee appeared and was given an opportunity to explain. The personnel committee resolved to dismiss the employee, and the employer then gave written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the employer violated the procedures for dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, considering the employee’s conduct of recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours, and reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby damaging the company’s image, it appears difficult to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of dismissal procedures
The employer convened a personnel committee, at which the employee appeared and was given an opportunity to explain. The personnel committee resolved to dismiss the employee, and the employer then gave written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the employer violated the procedures for dismissal in dismissing the employee. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissal of application
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report), trial dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, unauthorized absence, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Let’s Give Written Notice (Dismissal by Text Message from Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report) can be viewed together in the “Probationary Dismissal (Comprehensive Recording of Colleagues · Police Report) Related Precedent List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1137 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee was dismissed during the probationary period on the grounds of work performance evaluations, poor attendance, and conduct such as continuously recording and filming colleagues’ words and behavior, and reporting an in‑house contact accident to the police. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined: (i) whether the conduct fell within the grounds for dismissal under the Rules of Employment, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) imposed on a probationary employee, and (iii) the lawfulness of the dismissal procedures, including the convening of a personnel committee and written notice.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, under the Labor Standards Act, the employer’s action of dismissing a probationary employee—who had been evaluated as having problems with work ability and work attitude during the probationary period—based on those evaluations together with the employee’s comprehensive recording/filming of colleagues and reporting of an in‑house accident to the police, can be regarded as a just cause dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel found that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the employer’s conclusion that it was no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship, in light of: (i) the employee’s failure to improve despite multiple warnings about work performance during the probationary period; (ii) the fact that the employee received a D grade, indicating difficulty in regular employment, in both probationary evaluations; (iii) the employee’s relatively frequent absences compared to other employees, evidencing poor work attitude; and (iv) the employee’s conduct of continuously recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours and immediately reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby negatively affecting the company’s image.
The Commission also found the dismissal procedures lawful, given that the employer convened a personnel committee, afforded the employee an opportunity to attend and explain, and, following the committee’s resolution to dismiss, notified the employee of the dismissal in writing. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal but a just dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a trial or probationary period, dismissal is not completely at the employer’s free discretion. For a dismissal based on negative evaluations of work ability or work attitude to be recognized as just, there must be objective and reasonable grounds, and the dismissal must be considered appropriate under social norms.
However, because the employer’s right to terminate is recognized somewhat more broadly during the probationary period, employees should be careful from the outset of probation to prevent unfavorable circumstances—such as repeated work‑related warnings, low evaluation grades, and frequent absences—from accumulating. It is advisable to clearly document efforts to improve by actively seeking feedback and responding to it.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
Even for dismissals during a trial or probationary period, employers should establish in advance evaluation criteria based on the Rules of Employment and personnel regulations, and should actually document the evaluation process and the process of pointing out and guiding deficiencies in accordance with those criteria.
In particular, where there are circumstances that seriously disrupt organizational order—such as continuous recording of colleagues or excessive externalization of disputes (e.g., police reports)—the employer should clearly investigate and record the facts, and faithfully comply with procedures such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and issuing written notice of dismissal. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the dismissal’s legitimacy before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in unfair dismissal disputes of this type arising during the probationary period, it is important to accurately understand the legal principle that objective rationality and appropriateness under social norms are required even for trial/probationary dismissals, and to systematically prepare evaluation materials, records of guidance, and documentation of procedural compliance in line with that principle, in cooperation with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, considering the employee’s conduct of recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours, and reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby damaging the company’s image, it appears difficult to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of dismissal procedures
The employer convened a personnel committee, at which the employee appeared and was given an opportunity to explain. The personnel committee resolved to dismiss the employee, and the employer then gave written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the employer violated the procedures for dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of grounds for dismissal
Despite having been pointed out several times during the probationary period for deficiencies in work performance, the employee failed to improve, received a D grade in both of two probationary evaluations, and had more absences than other employees, evidencing poor work attitude. These circumstances fall under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 73(1) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of dismissal
The employee received a D grade in both probationary evaluations, indicating that regular employment would be difficult. In particular, considering the employee’s conduct of recording and filming all of a colleague’s words and behavior during working hours, and reporting a contact accident between employees to the police, thereby damaging the company’s image, it appears difficult to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the level of disciplinary measure (dismissal) cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of dismissal procedures
The employer convened a personnel committee, at which the employee appeared and was given an opportunity to explain. The personnel committee resolved to dismiss the employee, and the employer then gave written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the employer violated the procedures for dismissal in dismissing the employee. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissal of application
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Precedent
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report), trial dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, unauthorized absence, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Let’s Give Written Notice (Dismissal by Text Message from Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (comprehensive recording of colleagues · police report) can be viewed together in the “Probationary Dismissal (Comprehensive Recording of Colleagues · Police Report) Related Precedent List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
