Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (1-Month Probationary Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 110)
- Date2026/01/14 04:10
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae821 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It was held that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form also stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
1. Legal Implications
This article introduces a case in which the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal arising from an employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee. The case frequently cited in unfair dismissal disputes involving probation and training periods. Based on the Commission’s reasoning and the legal principles governing probationary employment, this article organizes, drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, what employees and companies, respectively, should prepare in similar situations.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker entered into an employment contract with the company, signing off on a clause stating that there would be a “1‑month probationary period,” and then commenced work. During the probationary period, the employer evaluated the worker’s work attitude, job performance, and other factors, and at the end of the probationary period notified the worker, both orally and in writing, of its intention not to grant regular employment.
The worker then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that his/her status was that of a regular employee and that the refusal to grant regular employment constituted an unfair dismissal without just cause.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employment contract and related documents specify a 1‑month probationary period and the possibility of contract termination based on evaluation, the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel found that the worker was a probationary employee, given that the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period” and the possibility of contract termination based on the evaluation results at the end of that period, the hiring approval form described the position as “Regular employee (1‑month probationary period),” and the worker had signed these documents.
The Commission further noted that the employer had comprehensively evaluated the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period; that the grounds for this evaluation could not readily be viewed as markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms; and that the employer had orally communicated its intention to terminate the contract before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of the refusal to grant regular employment.
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and therefore determined that it was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should carefully review whether terms such as “probation” or “training period” appear in the employment contract, hiring approval form, undertakings, or similar documents executed at the time of hiring, and how the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and possibility of refusal of regular employment are set out.
A refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee still constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, where the evaluation grounds are not specific or are markedly unreasonable, it is advisable to consult an expert to assess whether there is scope to contest the dismissal as unfair.
In addition, during the probationary period, employees should keep their own records of day‑to‑day work performance, compliance with instructions, and responses to feedback. Such records can serve as important evidence later when disputing the reasonableness of the employer’s evaluation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly stipulate, in the rules of employment, employment contracts, hiring approval forms, and similar documents, the existence and length of the probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and obtain written consent.
During the probationary period, employers should record and evaluate work attitude, job performance, adaptability, and other factors according to objective criteria, and decide on regular employment based on those results, while self‑checking whether the evaluation grounds are acceptable under social norms.
Furthermore, when refusing regular employment, employers should, before the end of the probationary period, explain the intent orally and, in line with the purport of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice setting out specific reasons for the refusal. Observing these procedures will enhance the employer’s ability to defend itself in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Young‑Seob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It is determined that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employer conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period. This is viewed as a legitimate evaluation activity aimed at determining the worker’s job suitability, which is the very purpose of the probationary system, and the grounds for the evaluation cannot readily be considered markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms. In addition, the employer expressed its intention to terminate the contract orally to the worker before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of its refusal to grant regular employment. Accordingly, this is regarded as a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and there is no procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It is determined that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employer conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period. This is viewed as a legitimate evaluation activity aimed at determining the worker’s job suitability, which is the very purpose of the probationary system, and the grounds for the evaluation cannot readily be considered markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms. In addition, the employer expressed its intention to terminate the contract orally to the worker before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of its refusal to grant regular employment. Accordingly, this is regarded as a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and there is no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Dismissal for Procedural Reasons (Non‑appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period), dismissal of probationary employee, 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 Concerning ‘Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae821 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It was held that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form also stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
1. Legal Implications
This article introduces a case in which the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal arising from an employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee. The case frequently cited in unfair dismissal disputes involving probation and training periods. Based on the Commission’s reasoning and the legal principles governing probationary employment, this article organizes, drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, what employees and companies, respectively, should prepare in similar situations.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker entered into an employment contract with the company, signing off on a clause stating that there would be a “1‑month probationary period,” and then commenced work. During the probationary period, the employer evaluated the worker’s work attitude, job performance, and other factors, and at the end of the probationary period notified the worker, both orally and in writing, of its intention not to grant regular employment.
The worker then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that his/her status was that of a regular employee and that the refusal to grant regular employment constituted an unfair dismissal without just cause.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employment contract and related documents specify a 1‑month probationary period and the possibility of contract termination based on evaluation, the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel found that the worker was a probationary employee, given that the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period” and the possibility of contract termination based on the evaluation results at the end of that period, the hiring approval form described the position as “Regular employee (1‑month probationary period),” and the worker had signed these documents.
The Commission further noted that the employer had comprehensively evaluated the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period; that the grounds for this evaluation could not readily be viewed as markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms; and that the employer had orally communicated its intention to terminate the contract before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of the refusal to grant regular employment.
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and therefore determined that it was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should carefully review whether terms such as “probation” or “training period” appear in the employment contract, hiring approval form, undertakings, or similar documents executed at the time of hiring, and how the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and possibility of refusal of regular employment are set out.
A refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee still constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, where the evaluation grounds are not specific or are markedly unreasonable, it is advisable to consult an expert to assess whether there is scope to contest the dismissal as unfair.
In addition, during the probationary period, employees should keep their own records of day‑to‑day work performance, compliance with instructions, and responses to feedback. Such records can serve as important evidence later when disputing the reasonableness of the employer’s evaluation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly stipulate, in the rules of employment, employment contracts, hiring approval forms, and similar documents, the existence and length of the probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and obtain written consent.
During the probationary period, employers should record and evaluate work attitude, job performance, adaptability, and other factors according to objective criteria, and decide on regular employment based on those results, while self‑checking whether the evaluation grounds are acceptable under social norms.
Furthermore, when refusing regular employment, employers should, before the end of the probationary period, explain the intent orally and, in line with the purport of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice setting out specific reasons for the refusal. Observing these procedures will enhance the employer’s ability to defend itself in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Young‑Seob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It is determined that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employer conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period. This is viewed as a legitimate evaluation activity aimed at determining the worker’s job suitability, which is the very purpose of the probationary system, and the grounds for the evaluation cannot readily be considered markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms. In addition, the employer expressed its intention to terminate the contract orally to the worker before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of its refusal to grant regular employment. Accordingly, this is regarded as a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and there is no procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker was a probationary employee
It is determined that the worker was a probationary employee, as the employment contract clearly stated a “1‑month probationary period,” the worker signed a clause providing that the employment contract could be terminated based on the evaluation results at the end of the probationary period, and the hiring approval form stated “Employment status: Regular employee (1‑month probationary period).”
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
The employer conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the worker’s work attitude and job performance before the end of the probationary period. This is viewed as a legitimate evaluation activity aimed at determining the worker’s job suitability, which is the very purpose of the probationary system, and the grounds for the evaluation cannot readily be considered markedly unreasonable or contrary to social norms. In addition, the employer expressed its intention to terminate the contract orally to the worker before the end of the probationary period and clearly notified the worker in writing of its refusal to grant regular employment. Accordingly, this is regarded as a lawful exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate, and there is no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Dismissal for Procedural Reasons (Non‑appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period), dismissal of probationary employee, 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 Concerning ‘Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal of regular employment after probation (1‑month probationary period) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
