Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Justifiability of Dismissal During Probation (Probationary Evaluation)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 135)
- Date2026/01/22 04:13
- Read 260
This case concerns an unfair dismissal relief application decided in favor of the employer (dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9063 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.08 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker – Under the management regulations and the probation period provisions stated in the employment contract, the worker falls under the category of a probationary (trial) worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an unfair dismissal relief application handled by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the worker applied for relief on the ground that the refusal of regular employment at the end of the probation/trial period constituted an unfair dismissal. The Commission focused on whether, based on the probation provisions set out in the company’s management regulations and the employment contract, the worker could be regarded as a probationary (trial) worker, and whether the refusal of regular employment (in substance, a dismissal) at the end of that probationary period was justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where the employment contract and management regulations specify a probationary period, whether the worker falls under the category of a probationary (trial) worker, and whether the refusal of regular employment at the end of that probationary period constitutes a just cause for dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the worker was a probationary (trial) worker in light of the following: the management regulations and employment contract explicitly contained provisions on the application of a probationary period; those provisions were structured so that the worker’s job suitability would be evaluated over a certain period and the decision on regular employment would then be made; and, in general HR practice, the terms “probation” and “trial employment” are not clearly distinguished and are often used interchangeably in the sense of trial employment.
With respect to the employer’s probationary evaluation, which concluded that the worker’s job performance and ability were insufficient to continue the employment relationship, the panel found no evidence that the evaluation process was arbitrary or biased; the evaluation criteria and procedures were, to some extent, structured in accordance with the management regulations; and the Supreme Court has generally recognized a broader scope of justifiability for termination during a probationary (trial) period than for ordinary dismissal. On this basis, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employer’s refusal of regular employment as lacking objectivity or rationality.
The panel further noted that refusal of regular employment at the end of a probationary (trial) period constitutes the exercise of a “reserved right of termination” inherent in a trial employment contract and is different in nature from ordinary disciplinary dismissal; that, in principle, the disciplinary procedures under the personnel regulations apply to disciplinary dismissal of workers who have already been regularly employed; and that even if the employer did not convene a separate disciplinary committee or provide an opportunity for explanation when refusing regular employment during or at the end of the probationary (trial) period, this alone does not necessarily mean that procedural fairness was lacking. On these grounds, the panel concluded that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal and was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is essential to check the employment contract executed at the time of hiring, the provisions relating to probation/trial employment, and the contents of the management regulations and rules of employment. If the contract or regulations specify a probation/trial period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, the worker should, during that period, keep their own records and manage their work performance, attitude, and training completion history so as to secure materials that can later be used to challenge the objectivity of the evaluation.
In addition, when challenging a refusal of regular employment at the end of a probation/trial period, it is not sufficient merely to assert that “I am dissatisfied with the evaluation.” To increase the likelihood of success, the worker must prove specific unlawful or unreasonable circumstances, such as that the evaluation criteria were not presented in advance, that they were applied in a markedly discriminatory manner compared with other workers, or which parts of the evaluation content are clearly inconsistent with the facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and employment contracts the existence and duration of the probation/trial period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and to establish procedures to fully explain and notify these matters to the worker at the time of hiring. In particular, if the probation/trial system is in substance intended to evaluate suitability for regular employment but is described in writing only as a simple training or education period, this may later lead to disputes over whether the worker was “not on trial but already regularly employed.” Accordingly, the terminology and purpose should be organized consistently.
When conducting probation/trial evaluations, employers should determine in advance the evaluation form, evaluation items, evaluators, and timing of evaluations, and should keep the results in written form. Although the justifiability of dismissal during probation is recognized more broadly than that of ordinary dismissal, this is premised on the ability to prove that the evaluation was conducted according to objective and reasonable criteria. HR personnel should therefore systematically maintain records of evaluations and feedback.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker
Under the provisions on the application of a probationary period stated in the management regulations and the employment contract, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker.
B. Justifiability of the refusal of regular employment
It is difficult to regard the employer’s probationary evaluation—concluding that the worker’s work performance and job capability were such that the employment relationship could not be continued—as lacking objectivity or rationality, and it does not appear that procedural fairness was lacking. Accordingly, the refusal of regular employment is justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker
Under the provisions on the application of a probationary period stated in the management regulations and the employment contract, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker.
B. Justifiability of the refusal of regular employment
It is difficult to regard the employer’s probationary evaluation—concluding that the worker’s work performance and job capability were such that the employment relationship could not be continued—as lacking objectivity or rationality, and it does not appear that procedural fairness was lacking. Accordingly, the refusal of regular employment is justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk farewell message and immediate departure right after probation interview)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unjust Benefits and Favoritism Allegations)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation), dismissal during probation, 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 Measure (Unjust Benefits and Favoritism Allegations)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Dismissal During Probation (Probationary Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9063 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.08 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker – Under the management regulations and the probation period provisions stated in the employment contract, the worker falls under the category of a probationary (trial) worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an unfair dismissal relief application handled by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the worker applied for relief on the ground that the refusal of regular employment at the end of the probation/trial period constituted an unfair dismissal. The Commission focused on whether, based on the probation provisions set out in the company’s management regulations and the employment contract, the worker could be regarded as a probationary (trial) worker, and whether the refusal of regular employment (in substance, a dismissal) at the end of that probationary period was justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where the employment contract and management regulations specify a probationary period, whether the worker falls under the category of a probationary (trial) worker, and whether the refusal of regular employment at the end of that probationary period constitutes a just cause for dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the worker was a probationary (trial) worker in light of the following: the management regulations and employment contract explicitly contained provisions on the application of a probationary period; those provisions were structured so that the worker’s job suitability would be evaluated over a certain period and the decision on regular employment would then be made; and, in general HR practice, the terms “probation” and “trial employment” are not clearly distinguished and are often used interchangeably in the sense of trial employment.
With respect to the employer’s probationary evaluation, which concluded that the worker’s job performance and ability were insufficient to continue the employment relationship, the panel found no evidence that the evaluation process was arbitrary or biased; the evaluation criteria and procedures were, to some extent, structured in accordance with the management regulations; and the Supreme Court has generally recognized a broader scope of justifiability for termination during a probationary (trial) period than for ordinary dismissal. On this basis, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employer’s refusal of regular employment as lacking objectivity or rationality.
The panel further noted that refusal of regular employment at the end of a probationary (trial) period constitutes the exercise of a “reserved right of termination” inherent in a trial employment contract and is different in nature from ordinary disciplinary dismissal; that, in principle, the disciplinary procedures under the personnel regulations apply to disciplinary dismissal of workers who have already been regularly employed; and that even if the employer did not convene a separate disciplinary committee or provide an opportunity for explanation when refusing regular employment during or at the end of the probationary (trial) period, this alone does not necessarily mean that procedural fairness was lacking. On these grounds, the panel concluded that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal and was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is essential to check the employment contract executed at the time of hiring, the provisions relating to probation/trial employment, and the contents of the management regulations and rules of employment. If the contract or regulations specify a probation/trial period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, the worker should, during that period, keep their own records and manage their work performance, attitude, and training completion history so as to secure materials that can later be used to challenge the objectivity of the evaluation.
In addition, when challenging a refusal of regular employment at the end of a probation/trial period, it is not sufficient merely to assert that “I am dissatisfied with the evaluation.” To increase the likelihood of success, the worker must prove specific unlawful or unreasonable circumstances, such as that the evaluation criteria were not presented in advance, that they were applied in a markedly discriminatory manner compared with other workers, or which parts of the evaluation content are clearly inconsistent with the facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and employment contracts the existence and duration of the probation/trial period, the evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and to establish procedures to fully explain and notify these matters to the worker at the time of hiring. In particular, if the probation/trial system is in substance intended to evaluate suitability for regular employment but is described in writing only as a simple training or education period, this may later lead to disputes over whether the worker was “not on trial but already regularly employed.” Accordingly, the terminology and purpose should be organized consistently.
When conducting probation/trial evaluations, employers should determine in advance the evaluation form, evaluation items, evaluators, and timing of evaluations, and should keep the results in written form. Although the justifiability of dismissal during probation is recognized more broadly than that of ordinary dismissal, this is premised on the ability to prove that the evaluation was conducted according to objective and reasonable criteria. HR personnel should therefore systematically maintain records of evaluations and feedback.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker
Under the provisions on the application of a probationary period stated in the management regulations and the employment contract, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker.
B. Justifiability of the refusal of regular employment
It is difficult to regard the employer’s probationary evaluation—concluding that the worker’s work performance and job capability were such that the employment relationship could not be continued—as lacking objectivity or rationality, and it does not appear that procedural fairness was lacking. Accordingly, the refusal of regular employment is justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker
Under the provisions on the application of a probationary period stated in the management regulations and the employment contract, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) worker.
B. Justifiability of the refusal of regular employment
It is difficult to regard the employer’s probationary evaluation—concluding that the worker’s work performance and job capability were such that the employment relationship could not be continued—as lacking objectivity or rationality, and it does not appear that procedural fairness was lacking. Accordingly, the refusal of regular employment is justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk farewell message and immediate departure right after probation interview)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unjust Benefits and Favoritism Allegations)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation), dismissal during probation, 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 Measure (Unjust Benefits and Favoritism Allegations)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to justifiability of dismissal during probation (probationary evaluation) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Dismissal During Probation (Probationary Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
