Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to the “Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probationary Evaluation Standards)” (Unfair Dismissal 446)
- Date2026/05/12 04:04
- Read 109
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 175 ○ ○ ○
Date of decision: 2026.03.26 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract: the “probationary period” stated in the employment contract was interpreted as a trial period to determine whether the employee would be formally hired, and thus constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment: (1) the employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation; (2) the employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable; (3) despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance; (4) it was difficult to view the employer’s probationary evaluation system as having been created arbitrarily and ex post facto. In light of these factors, the refusal of formal employment was found to be based on reasonable grounds.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee whose formal employment was refused at the end of the probationary period filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employment contract specified a “probationary period,” and the company decided whether to grant formal employment based on a probationary employee evaluation form. The employee challenged this as unfair, leading to the dispute.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were: “Whether the probationary period stated in the employment contract constitutes a probationary (trial) period, and whether, upon expiration of that probationary period, the refusal of formal employment (dismissal) was supported by objectively reasonable grounds and conducted through lawful procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel held that the probationary period in the employment contract was a trial period for determining whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
Furthermore, the employer had prepared in advance a probationary employee evaluation form that used work performance, job competency, and work attitude as evaluation items with detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation. The employee received a score below the threshold for formal employment, and there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable. In addition, despite differences of opinion with the employer regarding sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and lacked willingness to improve work performance. It was also difficult to regard the evaluation system as having been created arbitrarily or ex post facto.
In light of these factors, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case, as a refusal of formal employment upon expiration of the probationary period, was based on reasonable grounds. Considering also that the employee was able to fully recognize the reasons for the decision through access to the probationary employee result sheet and the opportunity to raise objections, as well as the delivery of a written notice, the Commission held that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the term “probation” is used, where the actual purpose of the period is to evaluate and decide on formal employment, it will be regarded as a probationary employment contract, and the standards for determining the legitimacy of dismissal (refusal of formal employment) will apply.
During the probationary period, it is advisable for employees to request specific feedback on work attitude, competency, and work methods, and to review documents such as the probationary employee evaluation form in advance. Employees should carefully record and retain the evaluation criteria and results applicable to them.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the purpose of the probationary (trial) period and the criteria for evaluating formal employment should be clearly set out in the rules of employment and employment contracts. A system should be established to conduct multi‑faceted evaluations using objective evaluation forms that cover work performance, competency, attitude, and other factors.
Since refusal of formal employment for a probationary employee also constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, it is important to ensure procedural fairness by explaining the evaluation results and specific reasons to the employee and providing written notice.
In unfair dismissal disputes of this type, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examines: (i) whether a probationary employment relationship was formed; (ii) the objective reasonableness of the grounds for refusing formal employment; and (iii) the lawfulness of the evaluation and notification procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract
The probationary period in the employment contract was intended as a trial period to determine whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment
(1) The employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation.
(2) The employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable.
(3) Despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance.
(4) It was difficult to view the employer as having created the probationary evaluation system arbitrarily and ex post facto.
In light of these factors, there were reasonable grounds for refusing formal employment.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing formal employment was lawful
(1) The employee had fully recognized the reasons for the refusal of formal employment, having reviewed the probationary employee result sheet and raised objections to the evaluation content.
(2) The employer delivered a written notice of refusal of formal employment.
Considering these factors, there were no defects in the procedure for refusing formal employment, and it was therefore lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract
The probationary period in the employment contract was intended as a trial period to determine whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment
(1) The employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation.
(2) The employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable.
(3) Despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance.
(4) It was difficult to view the employer as having created the probationary evaluation system arbitrarily and ex post facto.
In light of these factors, there were reasonable grounds for refusing formal employment.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing formal employment was lawful
(1) The employee had fully recognized the reasons for the refusal of formal employment, having reviewed the probationary employee result sheet and raised objections to the evaluation content.
(2) The employer delivered a written notice of refusal of formal employment.
Considering these factors, there were no defects in the procedure for refusing formal employment, and it was therefore lawful.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards), probationary dismissal, personnel 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Relief Interest · Written Notice (Dismissal Notice via KakaoTalk)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to the Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probationary Evaluation Standards).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 175 ○ ○ ○
Date of decision: 2026.03.26 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract: the “probationary period” stated in the employment contract was interpreted as a trial period to determine whether the employee would be formally hired, and thus constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment: (1) the employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation; (2) the employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable; (3) despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance; (4) it was difficult to view the employer’s probationary evaluation system as having been created arbitrarily and ex post facto. In light of these factors, the refusal of formal employment was found to be based on reasonable grounds.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee whose formal employment was refused at the end of the probationary period filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employment contract specified a “probationary period,” and the company decided whether to grant formal employment based on a probationary employee evaluation form. The employee challenged this as unfair, leading to the dispute.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were: “Whether the probationary period stated in the employment contract constitutes a probationary (trial) period, and whether, upon expiration of that probationary period, the refusal of formal employment (dismissal) was supported by objectively reasonable grounds and conducted through lawful procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel held that the probationary period in the employment contract was a trial period for determining whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
Furthermore, the employer had prepared in advance a probationary employee evaluation form that used work performance, job competency, and work attitude as evaluation items with detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation. The employee received a score below the threshold for formal employment, and there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable. In addition, despite differences of opinion with the employer regarding sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and lacked willingness to improve work performance. It was also difficult to regard the evaluation system as having been created arbitrarily or ex post facto.
In light of these factors, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case, as a refusal of formal employment upon expiration of the probationary period, was based on reasonable grounds. Considering also that the employee was able to fully recognize the reasons for the decision through access to the probationary employee result sheet and the opportunity to raise objections, as well as the delivery of a written notice, the Commission held that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the term “probation” is used, where the actual purpose of the period is to evaluate and decide on formal employment, it will be regarded as a probationary employment contract, and the standards for determining the legitimacy of dismissal (refusal of formal employment) will apply.
During the probationary period, it is advisable for employees to request specific feedback on work attitude, competency, and work methods, and to review documents such as the probationary employee evaluation form in advance. Employees should carefully record and retain the evaluation criteria and results applicable to them.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the purpose of the probationary (trial) period and the criteria for evaluating formal employment should be clearly set out in the rules of employment and employment contracts. A system should be established to conduct multi‑faceted evaluations using objective evaluation forms that cover work performance, competency, attitude, and other factors.
Since refusal of formal employment for a probationary employee also constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, it is important to ensure procedural fairness by explaining the evaluation results and specific reasons to the employee and providing written notice.
In unfair dismissal disputes of this type, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examines: (i) whether a probationary employment relationship was formed; (ii) the objective reasonableness of the grounds for refusing formal employment; and (iii) the lawfulness of the evaluation and notification procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract
The probationary period in the employment contract was intended as a trial period to determine whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment
(1) The employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation.
(2) The employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable.
(3) Despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance.
(4) It was difficult to view the employer as having created the probationary evaluation system arbitrarily and ex post facto.
In light of these factors, there were reasonable grounds for refusing formal employment.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing formal employment was lawful
(1) The employee had fully recognized the reasons for the refusal of formal employment, having reviewed the probationary employee result sheet and raised objections to the evaluation content.
(2) The employer delivered a written notice of refusal of formal employment.
Considering these factors, there were no defects in the procedure for refusing formal employment, and it was therefore lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether this constitutes a probationary employment contract
The probationary period in the employment contract was intended as a trial period to determine whether to grant formal employment, and therefore constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing formal employment
(1) The employer prepared a probationary employee evaluation form in advance, structuring it with evaluation items such as work performance, job competency, and work attitude and their detailed indicators, and conducted a multi‑faceted evaluation.
(2) The employee received a score below the standard required for formal employment, and there were no circumstances suggesting that the employer’s evaluation was arbitrary or unreasonable.
(3) Despite disagreement with the employer over sales methods, the employee adhered only to the existing method and showed a lack of willingness to improve work performance.
(4) It was difficult to view the employer as having created the probationary evaluation system arbitrarily and ex post facto.
In light of these factors, there were reasonable grounds for refusing formal employment.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing formal employment was lawful
(1) The employee had fully recognized the reasons for the refusal of formal employment, having reviewed the probationary employee result sheet and raised objections to the evaluation content.
(2) The employer delivered a written notice of refusal of formal employment.
Considering these factors, there were no defects in the procedure for refusing formal employment, and it was therefore lawful.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards), probationary dismissal, personnel 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Relief Interest · Written Notice (Dismissal Notice via KakaoTalk)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the right to terminate probationary employment (failure to meet probationary evaluation standards) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to the Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probationary Evaluation Standards).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
