Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Probationary Dismissal (Front Desk Work Attitude)” (Unfair Dismissal 102)
- Date2026/01/13 04:09
- Read 231
[Case Information]
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision on “probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)”
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision Body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae197 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome: In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude during the probationary period …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker hired for a hotel front desk position who was dismissed within approximately three months of joining the company on the grounds of playing games and watching videos during working hours and leaning back in a slouched posture. The worker filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the worker’s status and the legitimacy of the dismissal based on the employment rules, the content of the employment contract, and the employer’s method of operating its probationary system, and ultimately found in favor of the employer.
This article, focusing on unfair dismissal and the structure of the Labor Relations Commission’s review, summarizes key takeaways on probationary dismissal and the written notice requirement for dismissal, based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issues in this case are whether, in a structure where a new hire works as a probationary employee for three months, a probationary dismissal based on front desk work attitude constitutes a legitimate dismissal, and whether a relatively brief dismissal notice stating “expiration of contract and insincere work attitude” satisfies the written notice requirement for reasons of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment rules provide for a probationary period for all newly appointed employees, that although the employment contract describes the worker as “non-regular,” this appears to reflect an intention not to employ the worker on a fixed-term basis but to determine whether to convert the worker to regular status on the premise of a probationary period, and that the employer’s HR practices are designed to evaluate the worker’s job suitability over the three months following hire.
On this basis, the Commission held that the worker held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
The Commission further noted that the worker admitted to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours, that the nature of front desk work requires constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, and that the probationary system is intended to allow the employer to observe and assess a worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, and sincerity before formal hiring, such that the employer’s right to terminate is recognized more broadly than in ordinary dismissals. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude was socially unacceptable.
With respect to the dismissal notice, although the reasons for dismissal were briefly stated as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker described those details in depth in the relief application. Considering that the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is to enable the worker to recognize and defend against the reasons for dismissal, the Commission held that the worker was sufficiently able to understand the reasons for dismissal and that it was therefore difficult to find that the written notice requirement had not been met.
Ultimately, the Commission held that this dismissal constituted a legitimate probationary dismissal and that there were no serious procedural defects, and therefore it did not amount to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, the mere presence of terms such as “probationary” or “non-regular” does not automatically mean that the contract is a fixed-term employment contract. It is necessary to review both the probationary provisions in the employment rules and the employer’s actual HR practices. Even during a probationary period, dismissal must be based on a just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. However, with respect to reasons related to the assessment of job suitability—such as work performance, work attitude, and sincerity—the employer is afforded broader discretion than in ordinary dismissals.
In particular, in positions where constant readiness and customer contact are central—such as front desk, call centers, and security—conduct that may appear minor on the surface, such as using a mobile phone, watching videos, or leaning back in a slouched posture during working hours, can be evaluated as a breach of the duty to devote oneself to work and the duty of good faith. During the probationary period, it is therefore necessary to manage one’s work attitude and posture more strictly. When receiving a written dismissal notice, even if the wording is somewhat abstract, it is advisable to record, via notes or email, the specific facts that the company regards as grounds for dismissal, so that you can later systematize your statements and defense arguments in Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring new employees, it is important to clearly and consistently specify in the employment rules, employment contracts, and job postings the existence and duration of any probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of formal hiring, so that there is no later dispute as to whether the relationship is a fixed-term employment contract or a probationary employment contract. The legitimacy of a probationary dismissal hinges on an objective evaluation of the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, and sincerity, and on social reasonableness. Accordingly, where there are reasons such as poor work attitude, negligent customer service, or unsuitability for emergency response, it is important to keep records of specific dates, circumstances, and whether instructions were followed.
Regarding written notice of dismissal, it is desirable, in line with the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, to state the reasons for dismissal with sufficient specificity for the worker to understand them, and to ensure that the written reasons are consistent with what was explained in any meetings. That said, as in this case, even if the written statement is somewhat brief, where the specific details are explained in a meeting and the worker’s subsequent statements clearly show that the worker understood the reasons for dismissal, there is a tendency not to regard this as a procedural defect. At a minimum, employers should conduct the meeting and explanation process in a structured manner at the time of dismissal notification and keep records of it.
To prevail in this type of probationary dismissal dispute, it is crucial in practice to have an accurate understanding of the legal nature of the probationary system and the criteria for assessing legitimacy, and to collect and organize, at an early stage, materials on work attitude, evaluation records, and the content of meetings that are consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude and other factors during the probationary period and then decide whether to hire the worker as a regular employee, it is reasonable to view the worker as having held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
2. Whether the Reasons and Procedures for Dismissal Were Legitimate
a) The worker admits to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours. In light of the nature of front desk duties, which require constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, these acts can be evaluated as a breach of the basic duty of devotion to work and the duty of sincerity required of a probationary employee. Therefore, in view of the purpose of the probationary system—to decide on formal hiring after observing and assessing, over a certain period prior to formal hiring, the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, sincerity, and other aspects of job suitability—it is difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude is socially unacceptable.
b) Although the dismissal notice briefly states the reasons for dismissal as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific details of the work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker also described those details in depth in the relief application. It therefore appears that the worker was fully able to recognize the reasons for dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was not satisfied, and no other procedural defect is apparent that would render the dismissal invalid. …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude and other factors during the probationary period and then decide whether to hire the worker as a regular employee, it is reasonable to view the worker as having held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
2. Whether the Reasons and Procedures for Dismissal Were Legitimate
a) The worker admits to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours. In light of the nature of front desk duties, which require constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, these acts can be evaluated as a breach of the basic duty of devotion to work and the duty of sincerity required of a probationary employee. Therefore, in view of the purpose of the probationary system—to decide on formal hiring after observing and assessing, over a certain period prior to formal hiring, the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, sincerity, and other aspects of job suitability—it is difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude is socially unacceptable.
b) Although the dismissal notice briefly states the reasons for dismissal as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific details of the work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker also described those details in depth in the relief application. It therefore appears that the worker was fully able to recognize the reasons for dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was not satisfied, and no other procedural defect is apparent that would render the dismissal invalid. … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First Instance Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Verification of Sunk Costs · Omission of Approval for Fund Withdrawal)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude), probationary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Verification of Sunk Costs · Omission of Approval for Fund Withdrawal)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Front Desk Work Attitude).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision on “probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)”
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision Body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae197 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome: In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude during the probationary period …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker hired for a hotel front desk position who was dismissed within approximately three months of joining the company on the grounds of playing games and watching videos during working hours and leaning back in a slouched posture. The worker filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the worker’s status and the legitimacy of the dismissal based on the employment rules, the content of the employment contract, and the employer’s method of operating its probationary system, and ultimately found in favor of the employer.
This article, focusing on unfair dismissal and the structure of the Labor Relations Commission’s review, summarizes key takeaways on probationary dismissal and the written notice requirement for dismissal, based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issues in this case are whether, in a structure where a new hire works as a probationary employee for three months, a probationary dismissal based on front desk work attitude constitutes a legitimate dismissal, and whether a relatively brief dismissal notice stating “expiration of contract and insincere work attitude” satisfies the written notice requirement for reasons of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment rules provide for a probationary period for all newly appointed employees, that although the employment contract describes the worker as “non-regular,” this appears to reflect an intention not to employ the worker on a fixed-term basis but to determine whether to convert the worker to regular status on the premise of a probationary period, and that the employer’s HR practices are designed to evaluate the worker’s job suitability over the three months following hire.
On this basis, the Commission held that the worker held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
The Commission further noted that the worker admitted to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours, that the nature of front desk work requires constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, and that the probationary system is intended to allow the employer to observe and assess a worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, and sincerity before formal hiring, such that the employer’s right to terminate is recognized more broadly than in ordinary dismissals. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude was socially unacceptable.
With respect to the dismissal notice, although the reasons for dismissal were briefly stated as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker described those details in depth in the relief application. Considering that the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is to enable the worker to recognize and defend against the reasons for dismissal, the Commission held that the worker was sufficiently able to understand the reasons for dismissal and that it was therefore difficult to find that the written notice requirement had not been met.
Ultimately, the Commission held that this dismissal constituted a legitimate probationary dismissal and that there were no serious procedural defects, and therefore it did not amount to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, the mere presence of terms such as “probationary” or “non-regular” does not automatically mean that the contract is a fixed-term employment contract. It is necessary to review both the probationary provisions in the employment rules and the employer’s actual HR practices. Even during a probationary period, dismissal must be based on a just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. However, with respect to reasons related to the assessment of job suitability—such as work performance, work attitude, and sincerity—the employer is afforded broader discretion than in ordinary dismissals.
In particular, in positions where constant readiness and customer contact are central—such as front desk, call centers, and security—conduct that may appear minor on the surface, such as using a mobile phone, watching videos, or leaning back in a slouched posture during working hours, can be evaluated as a breach of the duty to devote oneself to work and the duty of good faith. During the probationary period, it is therefore necessary to manage one’s work attitude and posture more strictly. When receiving a written dismissal notice, even if the wording is somewhat abstract, it is advisable to record, via notes or email, the specific facts that the company regards as grounds for dismissal, so that you can later systematize your statements and defense arguments in Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring new employees, it is important to clearly and consistently specify in the employment rules, employment contracts, and job postings the existence and duration of any probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of formal hiring, so that there is no later dispute as to whether the relationship is a fixed-term employment contract or a probationary employment contract. The legitimacy of a probationary dismissal hinges on an objective evaluation of the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, and sincerity, and on social reasonableness. Accordingly, where there are reasons such as poor work attitude, negligent customer service, or unsuitability for emergency response, it is important to keep records of specific dates, circumstances, and whether instructions were followed.
Regarding written notice of dismissal, it is desirable, in line with the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, to state the reasons for dismissal with sufficient specificity for the worker to understand them, and to ensure that the written reasons are consistent with what was explained in any meetings. That said, as in this case, even if the written statement is somewhat brief, where the specific details are explained in a meeting and the worker’s subsequent statements clearly show that the worker understood the reasons for dismissal, there is a tendency not to regard this as a procedural defect. At a minimum, employers should conduct the meeting and explanation process in a structured manner at the time of dismissal notification and keep records of it.
To prevail in this type of probationary dismissal dispute, it is crucial in practice to have an accurate understanding of the legal nature of the probationary system and the criteria for assessing legitimacy, and to collect and organize, at an early stage, materials on work attitude, evaluation records, and the content of meetings that are consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude and other factors during the probationary period and then decide whether to hire the worker as a regular employee, it is reasonable to view the worker as having held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
2. Whether the Reasons and Procedures for Dismissal Were Legitimate
a) The worker admits to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours. In light of the nature of front desk duties, which require constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, these acts can be evaluated as a breach of the basic duty of devotion to work and the duty of sincerity required of a probationary employee. Therefore, in view of the purpose of the probationary system—to decide on formal hiring after observing and assessing, over a certain period prior to formal hiring, the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, sincerity, and other aspects of job suitability—it is difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude is socially unacceptable.
b) Although the dismissal notice briefly states the reasons for dismissal as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific details of the work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker also described those details in depth in the relief application. It therefore appears that the worker was fully able to recognize the reasons for dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was not satisfied, and no other procedural defect is apparent that would render the dismissal invalid. …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the fact that the employment rules provide that “all newly appointed employees shall be subject to a probationary period …,” and further provide that new hires are appointed as probationary employees and that the appointment may be cancelled if work performance during the probationary period is poor, and that although the employment contract states “non-regular” this does not specify a fixed term of employment but rather reflects the employer’s intention to evaluate work attitude and other factors during the probationary period and then decide whether to hire the worker as a regular employee, it is reasonable to view the worker as having held the status of a probationary employee for three months from the date of hire.
2. Whether the Reasons and Procedures for Dismissal Were Legitimate
a) The worker admits to having played games and watched videos and to having adopted a leaning posture during working hours. In light of the nature of front desk duties, which require constant vigilance and readiness for customer service and emergency response, these acts can be evaluated as a breach of the basic duty of devotion to work and the duty of sincerity required of a probationary employee. Therefore, in view of the purpose of the probationary system—to decide on formal hiring after observing and assessing, over a certain period prior to formal hiring, the worker’s job performance, aptitude, character, sincerity, and other aspects of job suitability—it is difficult to conclude that dismissal on the grounds of the above work attitude is socially unacceptable.
b) Although the dismissal notice briefly states the reasons for dismissal as “expiration of contract” and “insincere work attitude,” the head of the Management Support Team explained the specific details of the work attitude problems at the time of notification, and the worker also described those details in depth in the relief application. It therefore appears that the worker was fully able to recognize the reasons for dismissal. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was not satisfied, and no other procedural defect is apparent that would render the dismissal invalid. … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First Instance Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Verification of Sunk Costs · Omission of Approval for Fund Withdrawal)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude), probationary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Verification of Sunk Costs · Omission of Approval for Fund Withdrawal)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Front Desk Work Attitude).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
