Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Employment Relationship (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards)” (Unfair Dismissal 457)
- Date2026/05/17 04:12
- Read 96
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “probationary employment relationship (failure to meet probation evaluation standards).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal 118 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose where an employee, whose regular employment was denied upon completion of the probationary period, claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, but the application was dismissed by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issue was the legitimacy of the company’s refusal to grant regular employment based on the probation evaluation results, in circumstances where the employment contract and the rules of employment contained provisions on probation/trial employment. This is a type of case frequently handled in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Where the employment contract and rules of employment contain provisions on the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and the company operates the probation system uniformly for all new employees, can this employee be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee, and, on that premise, does the refusal of regular employment based on the probation evaluation results constitute unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, that the business had consistently applied the probation (trial) system to all new employees without exception, and that, during the probationary period, an evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the prescribed standard for regular employment.
Accordingly, the employment contract between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship. Taking into account that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that the company calculated the score in accordance with internal evaluation criteria and refused regular employment based on those results,
the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case constituted the exercise, at the end of the probationary period, of a previously reserved right to terminate, and that its grounds and procedures were socially acceptable and reasonable. It therefore held that the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check, at the time of joining the company, how the employment contract and rules of employment regulate the probation/trial period, the criteria for refusal of regular employment, and the evaluation methods. Although refusal of regular employment during or at the end of the probationary period is, in substance, a dismissal, a broader range of job inadequacy may be recognized for probationary employees than for ordinary dismissals. Accordingly, it is important to focus your response strategy on whether there were objective errors, discrimination, or violations of the applicable rules in the evaluation process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the existence and duration of the probation/trial period, the evaluation items, and the criteria for refusal of regular employment should be clearly stipulated in the rules of employment and employment contracts, and the system should be operated consistently for all new employees. In addition, you should retain concrete evaluation materials from the probation evaluation process and, where necessary, conduct interviews to explain and record the reasons for job inadequacy. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s actions.
In this type of dispute concerning probation/trial employment, what the Labor Relations Commission and the courts place particular emphasis on in practice is whether the basis for establishing a probationary employment relationship is clear, whether the evaluation and refusal-of-regular-employment criteria were predetermined, and whether objective and consistent evaluations were conducted in accordance with those criteria.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the relationship constitutes a probationary employment relationship
Taking into account that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and that the probation system was applied to all new employees at the workplace, the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Considering that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that a probation evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the standard for regular employment, the grounds and procedures for refusal of regular employment were found to be appropriate.
3. Gist of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the relationship constitutes a probationary employment relationship
Taking into account that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and that the probation system was applied to all new employees at the workplace, the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Considering that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that a probation evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the standard for regular employment, the grounds and procedures for refusal of regular employment were found to be appropriate. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Entertainment Hostess)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary employment relationship (failure to meet probation evaluation standards), dismissal of probationary employee, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘True Intent of Resignation (Resignation Under Pressure/Harassment)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary employment relationships (failure to meet probation evaluation standards) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Employment Relationships (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “probationary employment relationship (failure to meet probation evaluation standards).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal 118 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose where an employee, whose regular employment was denied upon completion of the probationary period, claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, but the application was dismissed by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issue was the legitimacy of the company’s refusal to grant regular employment based on the probation evaluation results, in circumstances where the employment contract and the rules of employment contained provisions on probation/trial employment. This is a type of case frequently handled in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Where the employment contract and rules of employment contain provisions on the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and the company operates the probation system uniformly for all new employees, can this employee be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee, and, on that premise, does the refusal of regular employment based on the probation evaluation results constitute unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, that the business had consistently applied the probation (trial) system to all new employees without exception, and that, during the probationary period, an evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the prescribed standard for regular employment.
Accordingly, the employment contract between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship. Taking into account that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that the company calculated the score in accordance with internal evaluation criteria and refused regular employment based on those results,
the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case constituted the exercise, at the end of the probationary period, of a previously reserved right to terminate, and that its grounds and procedures were socially acceptable and reasonable. It therefore held that the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check, at the time of joining the company, how the employment contract and rules of employment regulate the probation/trial period, the criteria for refusal of regular employment, and the evaluation methods. Although refusal of regular employment during or at the end of the probationary period is, in substance, a dismissal, a broader range of job inadequacy may be recognized for probationary employees than for ordinary dismissals. Accordingly, it is important to focus your response strategy on whether there were objective errors, discrimination, or violations of the applicable rules in the evaluation process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the existence and duration of the probation/trial period, the evaluation items, and the criteria for refusal of regular employment should be clearly stipulated in the rules of employment and employment contracts, and the system should be operated consistently for all new employees. In addition, you should retain concrete evaluation materials from the probation evaluation process and, where necessary, conduct interviews to explain and record the reasons for job inadequacy. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s actions.
In this type of dispute concerning probation/trial employment, what the Labor Relations Commission and the courts place particular emphasis on in practice is whether the basis for establishing a probationary employment relationship is clear, whether the evaluation and refusal-of-regular-employment criteria were predetermined, and whether objective and consistent evaluations were conducted in accordance with those criteria.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the relationship constitutes a probationary employment relationship
Taking into account that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and that the probation system was applied to all new employees at the workplace, the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Considering that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that a probation evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the standard for regular employment, the grounds and procedures for refusal of regular employment were found to be appropriate.
3. Gist of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the relationship constitutes a probationary employment relationship
Taking into account that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly stipulated the probationary period and refusal of regular employment, and that the probation system was applied to all new employees at the workplace, the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was held to constitute a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Considering that a prior interview was conducted regarding the employee’s work performance that fell under the grounds for refusal of regular employment as set out in the rules of employment, and that a probation evaluation was conducted pursuant to internal regulations and the employee’s score fell short of the standard for regular employment, the grounds and procedures for refusal of regular employment were found to be appropriate. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Entertainment Hostess)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary employment relationship (failure to meet probation evaluation standards), dismissal of probationary employee, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘True Intent of Resignation (Resignation Under Pressure/Harassment)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary employment relationships (failure to meet probation evaluation standards) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Employment Relationships (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
