Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury During Skin Treatment) (Unfair Dismissal 435)
- Date2026/05/07 04:09
- Read 124
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal232 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose at a skin treatment company where, during a one‑month probationary/trial period, the employee caused several burn incidents. When the employer then refused to confirm the employee as a regular hire, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission reviewed the probation/trial provisions in the employment contract and the work rules, as well as the overall evaluation and notification procedures during the probationary period, and determined whether the employer’s refusal to confirm the employee as a regular hire was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where the employment contract and work rules stipulate a one‑month probationary period and the possibility of contract termination following evaluation, the employer’s refusal to confirm a probationary employee as a regular hire on the grounds of burn incidents and poor work attitude constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee was a probationary (trial) worker, as the employer had clearly stipulated in the employment contract and work rules a one‑month probationary period and the possibility of terminating the employment relationship following evaluation. It further noted that the employee had caused burns to four patients during treatment, that the employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care, and that the employee was repeatedly seen dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and failed to improve even after being admonished.
Taking into account that the employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and presented and explained the results, and that the employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract, thereby observing the reasons and at least part of the procedures for refusing regular employment, the Commission held that the refusal to confirm the employee as a regular hire, as an exercise of the reserved right to terminate during the probationary period, was based on just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and was reasonable under social norms. Accordingly, it ruled that the refusal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even during a probationary/trial period, an employment contract has already been formed, and a refusal to confirm as a regular hire may amount to a dismissal. However, it should be kept in mind that, with respect to job suitability and work attitude, a refusal to confirm regular employment can be justified within a broader scope than is generally permitted for ordinary dismissals. In particular, in occupations such as medical or cosmetic procedures where safety and expertise are critical, if repeated accidents occur, work‑related negligence is not corrected despite training, or basic duties of diligence are repeatedly breached (e.g., dozing off during working hours), the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to find the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment to be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a trial/probationary system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules and employment contract the probationary period, evaluation methods, and the possibility of refusing regular employment, and to fully implement the procedures in practice, including preparing evaluation forms, providing feedback, and delivering a written notice of termination. In addition, unlike redundancy dismissals, probationary dismissals (refusals to confirm regular employment) are not necessarily required to follow the same procedures as disciplinary dismissals. Nonetheless, employers should keep in mind in practice that it is much easier to have the legitimacy of such measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission if they maintain sufficient records of training, warnings, demands for improvement, and evaluation results.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the employee was a probationary worker
Because the employment contract and work rules provided for the application of a one‑month probationary period and allowed termination of the employment relationship following evaluation, the employee was deemed a probationary worker.
(b) Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The employee caused burns to four patients during treatment.
② The employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care.
③ The employee was repeatedly observed dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and did not improve despite being admonished.
④ The employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and showed and explained this to the employee.
⑤ The employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract.
In light of all of the above, the Commission found that both the grounds and the procedures for refusing to confirm regular employment were justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(a) Whether the employee was a probationary worker
Because the employment contract and work rules provided for the application of a one‑month probationary period and allowed termination of the employment relationship following evaluation, the employee was deemed a probationary worker.
(b) Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The employee caused burns to four patients during treatment.
② The employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care.
③ The employee was repeatedly observed dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and did not improve despite being admonished.
④ The employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and showed and explained this to the employee.
⑤ The employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract.
In light of all of the above, the Commission found that both the grounds and the procedures for refusing to confirm regular employment were justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Who Accepted Recommendation to Resign)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong‑dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Who Accepted Recommendation to Resign)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment) at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury During Skin Treatment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal232 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose at a skin treatment company where, during a one‑month probationary/trial period, the employee caused several burn incidents. When the employer then refused to confirm the employee as a regular hire, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission reviewed the probation/trial provisions in the employment contract and the work rules, as well as the overall evaluation and notification procedures during the probationary period, and determined whether the employer’s refusal to confirm the employee as a regular hire was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where the employment contract and work rules stipulate a one‑month probationary period and the possibility of contract termination following evaluation, the employer’s refusal to confirm a probationary employee as a regular hire on the grounds of burn incidents and poor work attitude constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee was a probationary (trial) worker, as the employer had clearly stipulated in the employment contract and work rules a one‑month probationary period and the possibility of terminating the employment relationship following evaluation. It further noted that the employee had caused burns to four patients during treatment, that the employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care, and that the employee was repeatedly seen dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and failed to improve even after being admonished.
Taking into account that the employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and presented and explained the results, and that the employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract, thereby observing the reasons and at least part of the procedures for refusing regular employment, the Commission held that the refusal to confirm the employee as a regular hire, as an exercise of the reserved right to terminate during the probationary period, was based on just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and was reasonable under social norms. Accordingly, it ruled that the refusal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even during a probationary/trial period, an employment contract has already been formed, and a refusal to confirm as a regular hire may amount to a dismissal. However, it should be kept in mind that, with respect to job suitability and work attitude, a refusal to confirm regular employment can be justified within a broader scope than is generally permitted for ordinary dismissals. In particular, in occupations such as medical or cosmetic procedures where safety and expertise are critical, if repeated accidents occur, work‑related negligence is not corrected despite training, or basic duties of diligence are repeatedly breached (e.g., dozing off during working hours), the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to find the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment to be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a trial/probationary system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules and employment contract the probationary period, evaluation methods, and the possibility of refusing regular employment, and to fully implement the procedures in practice, including preparing evaluation forms, providing feedback, and delivering a written notice of termination. In addition, unlike redundancy dismissals, probationary dismissals (refusals to confirm regular employment) are not necessarily required to follow the same procedures as disciplinary dismissals. Nonetheless, employers should keep in mind in practice that it is much easier to have the legitimacy of such measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission if they maintain sufficient records of training, warnings, demands for improvement, and evaluation results.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the employee was a probationary worker
Because the employment contract and work rules provided for the application of a one‑month probationary period and allowed termination of the employment relationship following evaluation, the employee was deemed a probationary worker.
(b) Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The employee caused burns to four patients during treatment.
② The employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care.
③ The employee was repeatedly observed dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and did not improve despite being admonished.
④ The employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and showed and explained this to the employee.
⑤ The employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract.
In light of all of the above, the Commission found that both the grounds and the procedures for refusing to confirm regular employment were justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(a) Whether the employee was a probationary worker
Because the employment contract and work rules provided for the application of a one‑month probationary period and allowed termination of the employment relationship following evaluation, the employee was deemed a probationary worker.
(b) Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure)
① The employee caused burns to four patients during treatment.
② The employee’s work‑related problems did not improve at all despite training and repeated requests for greater care.
③ The employee was repeatedly observed dozing off during working hours by colleagues and managers and did not improve despite being admonished.
④ The employer evaluated the employee using a probationary‑period evaluation form and showed and explained this to the employee.
⑤ The employer directly delivered a written notice of termination of the employment contract.
In light of all of the above, the Commission found that both the grounds and the procedures for refusing to confirm regular employment were justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Who Accepted Recommendation to Resign)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong‑dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Who Accepted Recommendation to Resign)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (burn injury during skin treatment) at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury During Skin Treatment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
