Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 422)
- Date2026/05/02 04:04
- Read 135
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee).”
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9127 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.04.02 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship. Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was heard before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission and concerned whether the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary employment contract period for a quality control team probationary employee was lawful. The employment contract expressly provided for a probationary period and for a decision on regular employment based on the evaluation during that period. The company refused regular employment on the ground of the probation-to-regular conversion evaluation result, while the employee applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that there were serious problems with the evaluation criteria, procedures, and method of notification.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were whether, in circumstances where the probationary (trial) employee had not been clearly informed of the evaluation criteria and methods, and where the refusal of regular employment was based on improper evaluation items such as participation in overtime work and on the team leader’s abuse of discretionary authority, such refusal constituted a dismissal with “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act; and whether the notification, consisting only of a photo file sent by text message and abstract reasons, satisfied the “written notice” requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, although the existence of a probationary employment relationship itself was recognized because the employment contract specified a probationary period and a decision on regular employment based on the evaluation during that period, it was difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured, since the employer did not publish or individually notify the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation.
The panel further found that treating participation in overtime work (extended, holiday, and night work beyond 40 hours per week) as a core evaluation item for conversion to regular employment by including “overtime participation” as an evaluation item effectively compelled work in excess of the statutory 40-hour workweek and thus lacked reasonableness as an evaluation item. In addition, it appeared that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Nevertheless, the team leader evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” item, thereby exceeding and abusing the discretionary authority in conducting the probationary evaluation.
In light of the above, the panel held that, even though the measure at issue was a refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee, it did not have objectively reasonable grounds or social acceptability and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
The panel also held that the employer’s act of photographing the employment termination notice with a mobile phone and sending it to the employee by text message did not constitute “written notice” as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Moreover, the termination notice merely stated in abstract terms that the employee “did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment” and did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and thus did not satisfy the requirements for lawful written notice.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary or trial period, an employment relationship has already been established. A refusal to grant regular employment is ultimately a “dismissal” that requires just cause and lawful procedures, even if it is more broadly recognized than ordinary dismissal. If you were not informed in advance at all of the evaluation criteria and methods, or if items such as participation in extended or holiday work—which effectively compel work in excess of statutory working hours—were used as core criteria for conversion to regular employment, you may challenge the objectivity and reasonableness of the evaluation and apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. In addition, if the dismissal notice was given in a form that only approximates writing, such as sending a photo by text message or KakaoTalk, and if it did not state specific reasons, you should also consider challenging it as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When operating a probationary or trial system, it is advisable to specify as concretely as possible in the rules of employment, HR regulations, and employment contracts the probationary period, evaluation items, evaluation methods, and the score thresholds for conversion to regular employment, and to clearly notify employees of these in writing or through training. In particular, if participation in overtime, extra work, or holiday work is operated as a mandatory item for conversion to regular employment, issues of compelled extended work and arbitrariness in evaluation may arise. It is therefore preferable to design the evaluation system around job-related items such as work performance, attitude, and ability to cooperate. Finally, when refusing regular employment, you should strictly comply with the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by directly delivering a dismissal notice stating the reasons in detail, or by using a method such as postal mail that can be objectively proven.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is significant in that it strictly examined the objectivity and reasonableness of evaluation criteria, the scope of the evaluator’s discretion, and the written notice obligation regarding reasons for dismissal, even in cases of refusal of regular employment for probationary employees. Both employees and employers should refer to this case for the prevention of and response to unfair dismissal. If you require assistance with Labor Relations Commission proceedings or with reviewing and improving your probationary or trial systems, you should consider consulting a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship
Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified
The employer did not publish or notify the probationary employee in the quality control team of the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation, and thus it is difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured. Including “overtime participation” (5 points) as an evaluation item in the evaluation for conversion to regular employment made it possible to compel the probationary employee to perform extended, holiday, and night work in excess of 40 hours per week, and therefore it is difficult to regard the evaluation as having objectivity and reasonableness. It appears that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Accordingly, the fact that Team Leader Park ○○ evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” (5 points) was deemed an excess and abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the procedure for refusing regular employment
The employer’s act of sending the employee, by text message, a photo taken with a mobile phone does not constitute “written notice” as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, apart from stating that the employee did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment, the employment termination notice did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as lawful written notice.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship
Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified
The employer did not publish or notify the probationary employee in the quality control team of the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation, and thus it is difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured. Including “overtime participation” (5 points) as an evaluation item in the evaluation for conversion to regular employment made it possible to compel the probationary employee to perform extended, holiday, and night work in excess of 40 hours per week, and therefore it is difficult to regard the evaluation as having objectivity and reasonableness. It appears that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Accordingly, the fact that Team Leader Park ○○ evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” (5 points) was deemed an excess and abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the procedure for refusing regular employment
The employer’s act of sending the employee, by text message, a photo taken with a mobile phone does not constitute “written notice” as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, apart from stating that the employee did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment, the employment termination notice did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as lawful written notice. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Participation in Temporary Project)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee) in the “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9127 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.04.02 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship. Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was heard before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission and concerned whether the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary employment contract period for a quality control team probationary employee was lawful. The employment contract expressly provided for a probationary period and for a decision on regular employment based on the evaluation during that period. The company refused regular employment on the ground of the probation-to-regular conversion evaluation result, while the employee applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that there were serious problems with the evaluation criteria, procedures, and method of notification.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were whether, in circumstances where the probationary (trial) employee had not been clearly informed of the evaluation criteria and methods, and where the refusal of regular employment was based on improper evaluation items such as participation in overtime work and on the team leader’s abuse of discretionary authority, such refusal constituted a dismissal with “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act; and whether the notification, consisting only of a photo file sent by text message and abstract reasons, satisfied the “written notice” requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, although the existence of a probationary employment relationship itself was recognized because the employment contract specified a probationary period and a decision on regular employment based on the evaluation during that period, it was difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured, since the employer did not publish or individually notify the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation.
The panel further found that treating participation in overtime work (extended, holiday, and night work beyond 40 hours per week) as a core evaluation item for conversion to regular employment by including “overtime participation” as an evaluation item effectively compelled work in excess of the statutory 40-hour workweek and thus lacked reasonableness as an evaluation item. In addition, it appeared that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Nevertheless, the team leader evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” item, thereby exceeding and abusing the discretionary authority in conducting the probationary evaluation.
In light of the above, the panel held that, even though the measure at issue was a refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee, it did not have objectively reasonable grounds or social acceptability and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
The panel also held that the employer’s act of photographing the employment termination notice with a mobile phone and sending it to the employee by text message did not constitute “written notice” as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Moreover, the termination notice merely stated in abstract terms that the employee “did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment” and did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and thus did not satisfy the requirements for lawful written notice.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary or trial period, an employment relationship has already been established. A refusal to grant regular employment is ultimately a “dismissal” that requires just cause and lawful procedures, even if it is more broadly recognized than ordinary dismissal. If you were not informed in advance at all of the evaluation criteria and methods, or if items such as participation in extended or holiday work—which effectively compel work in excess of statutory working hours—were used as core criteria for conversion to regular employment, you may challenge the objectivity and reasonableness of the evaluation and apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. In addition, if the dismissal notice was given in a form that only approximates writing, such as sending a photo by text message or KakaoTalk, and if it did not state specific reasons, you should also consider challenging it as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When operating a probationary or trial system, it is advisable to specify as concretely as possible in the rules of employment, HR regulations, and employment contracts the probationary period, evaluation items, evaluation methods, and the score thresholds for conversion to regular employment, and to clearly notify employees of these in writing or through training. In particular, if participation in overtime, extra work, or holiday work is operated as a mandatory item for conversion to regular employment, issues of compelled extended work and arbitrariness in evaluation may arise. It is therefore preferable to design the evaluation system around job-related items such as work performance, attitude, and ability to cooperate. Finally, when refusing regular employment, you should strictly comply with the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by directly delivering a dismissal notice stating the reasons in detail, or by using a method such as postal mail that can be objectively proven.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is significant in that it strictly examined the objectivity and reasonableness of evaluation criteria, the scope of the evaluator’s discretion, and the written notice obligation regarding reasons for dismissal, even in cases of refusal of regular employment for probationary employees. Both employees and employers should refer to this case for the prevention of and response to unfair dismissal. If you require assistance with Labor Relations Commission proceedings or with reviewing and improving your probationary or trial systems, you should consider consulting a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship
Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified
The employer did not publish or notify the probationary employee in the quality control team of the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation, and thus it is difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured. Including “overtime participation” (5 points) as an evaluation item in the evaluation for conversion to regular employment made it possible to compel the probationary employee to perform extended, holiday, and night work in excess of 40 hours per week, and therefore it is difficult to regard the evaluation as having objectivity and reasonableness. It appears that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Accordingly, the fact that Team Leader Park ○○ evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” (5 points) was deemed an excess and abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the procedure for refusing regular employment
The employer’s act of sending the employee, by text message, a photo taken with a mobile phone does not constitute “written notice” as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, apart from stating that the employee did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment, the employment termination notice did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as lawful written notice.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment relationship was a probationary (trial) employment relationship
Since the employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that the decision on regular employment would be made based on the evaluation during that period, the employee in this case was deemed a probationary employee.
B. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified
The employer did not publish or notify the probationary employee in the quality control team of the criteria and methods for the probationary evaluation, and thus it is difficult to regard the objectivity and reasonableness of the probationary evaluation as having been secured. Including “overtime participation” (5 points) as an evaluation item in the evaluation for conversion to regular employment made it possible to compel the probationary employee to perform extended, holiday, and night work in excess of 40 hours per week, and therefore it is difficult to regard the evaluation as having objectivity and reasonableness. It appears that the authority to evaluate probationary employees in the quality control team lay not with Team Leader Park ○○ but with Assistant Manager Moon ○○ and other employees. Accordingly, the fact that Team Leader Park ○○ evaluated all items beyond the scope of the “team leader evaluation” (5 points) was deemed an excess and abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the procedure for refusing regular employment
The employer’s act of sending the employee, by text message, a photo taken with a mobile phone does not constitute “written notice” as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, apart from stating that the employee did not meet the criteria for conversion to regular employment, the employment termination notice did not set out specific and substantive reasons for the refusal of regular employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as lawful written notice. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Participation in Temporary Project)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to abuse of probationary evaluation (quality control probationary employee) in the “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
