Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation Right to Conversion to Open-Ended Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee)” (Unfair Dismissal 136)
- Date2026/01/22 23:56
- Read 241
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision that was concluded in favor of the employee (full acceptance) on the issue of the “expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract (qualitative evaluation by the personnel committee).”
[Case Information]
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9057 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.05 · Outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the employee’s expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose when a fixed-term employee in the public sector was denied conversion to an open-ended contract on the basis of the personnel committee’s screening results and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the Rules of Employment for open-ended contract workers, the contents of the recruitment notice, and the personnel committee’s evaluation method, focusing on whether the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract existed and whether the reasons for refusing conversion were reasonable. It ultimately upheld a monetary compensation order.
The issue in this case is whether, “where the Rules of Employment and recruitment notice explicitly provide for the possibility of conversion to an open-ended contract, a refusal of conversion based on an arbitrary qualitative evaluation by the personnel committee constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, where the Rules of Employment and the recruitment notice state that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening,” whether a fixed-term employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract (expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract).
Second, whether the personnel committee’s refusal of conversion, based on an arbitrary cut-off score of “below 60 points” without any internal standard, and on qualitative evaluations by committee members who had no experience working with the employee, can be regarded as having reasonable grounds in light of social norms.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract, given that the Rules of Employment for open-ended contract workers and the recruitment notice explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude and work performance ratings, etc.,” and that these provisions in fact served as the basis for the actual conversion procedure.
The panel further noted that:
- Although the personnel committee applied a rule that conversion would not be allowed if the average score of the committee members’ evaluations was below 60 points, there was no provision at all establishing the basis for this 60-point threshold;
- All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective;
- Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that there were no reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that the dismissal disposition in this case constituted an unfair dismissal that infringed the employee’s expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract.
In addition, considering that the employee clearly wished for monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and that the relationship of trust between the parties appeared no longer maintainable, the panel found it appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. It determined 12,301,320 KRW to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, where the Rules of Employment, collective agreements, recruitment notices, etc. contain specific provisions stating that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible,” and such procedures are actually being implemented, an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract may be recognized.
If conversion to an open-ended contract is refused on the basis of performance evaluation results, you should carefully check:
- whether the evaluation criteria were disclosed in advance;
- whether there are any provisions establishing the basis for the score cut-off;
- whether the evaluators actually know your work; and
- whether specific reasons for the evaluation have been recorded.
Furthermore, even where the Labor Relations Commission finds that refusal of conversion to an open-ended contract is unjust, it may still resolve the dispute by issuing a monetary compensation order if the employee prefers monetary compensation over reinstatement and if it determines that the relationship of trust cannot be restored. Accordingly, you should strategically choose your remedy (reinstatement vs. monetary compensation) in light of your future career plans.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When operating a system for converting fixed-term employees to open-ended contracts, if you specify the conditions and procedures for conversion in the Rules of Employment, internal guidelines, recruitment notices, etc., you must design the system on the premise that this may confer an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract on employees.
If you intend to make the personnel committee’s evaluation a key criterion for determining conversion, you should:
- clearly establish, in internal regulations, the basis for the evaluation items, scoring, and cut-off (e.g., a 60-point threshold);
- constitute the evaluation committee with supervisors or related persons who actually know the employee’s work; and
- leave at least brief written records of the reasons for the evaluations.
Reasons for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract must be based on objective facts—such as poor work performance or repeated lack of sincerity—rather than on vague personality assessments, and you should accumulate supporting materials in advance (work evaluation forms, interview records, warning letters, etc.) in order to have reasonable grounds recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
In the event of an unfair dismissal dispute, the standard of review applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts is “considerable reasonableness in light of social norms.” You should therefore bear in mind that it will be difficult to defend your position merely by asserting that “the personnel committee decided so.”
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly shows that, where an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized, merely formal or arbitrary use of performance evaluations may lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. Workplaces operating similar systems should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, re-examine in advance their Rules of Employment, conversion criteria, and performance evaluation procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
B. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract
Although the personnel committee applied a rule that, where the average of the committee members’ evaluation scores was below 60 points, conversion to an open-ended contract would not be allowed, there was no provision establishing the basis for the 60-point threshold. All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective. Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
C. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
As the employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and it was determined that there was no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, it was found appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. The amount of monetary compensation was deemed appropriate at 12,301,320 KRW.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
B. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract
Although the personnel committee applied a rule that, where the average of the committee members’ evaluation scores was below 60 points, conversion to an open-ended contract would not be allowed, there was no provision establishing the basis for the 60-point threshold. All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective. Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
C. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
As the employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and it was determined that there was no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, it was found appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. The amount of monetary compensation was deemed appropriate at 12,301,320 KRW. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation right to conversion to open-ended contract (qualitative evaluation by personnel committee), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Probationary Dismissal (Probation Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract (qualitative evaluation by personnel committee) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation Right to Conversion to Open-Ended Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9057 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.05 · Outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the employee’s expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose when a fixed-term employee in the public sector was denied conversion to an open-ended contract on the basis of the personnel committee’s screening results and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the Rules of Employment for open-ended contract workers, the contents of the recruitment notice, and the personnel committee’s evaluation method, focusing on whether the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract existed and whether the reasons for refusing conversion were reasonable. It ultimately upheld a monetary compensation order.
The issue in this case is whether, “where the Rules of Employment and recruitment notice explicitly provide for the possibility of conversion to an open-ended contract, a refusal of conversion based on an arbitrary qualitative evaluation by the personnel committee constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, where the Rules of Employment and the recruitment notice state that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening,” whether a fixed-term employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract (expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract).
Second, whether the personnel committee’s refusal of conversion, based on an arbitrary cut-off score of “below 60 points” without any internal standard, and on qualitative evaluations by committee members who had no experience working with the employee, can be regarded as having reasonable grounds in light of social norms.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract, given that the Rules of Employment for open-ended contract workers and the recruitment notice explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude and work performance ratings, etc.,” and that these provisions in fact served as the basis for the actual conversion procedure.
The panel further noted that:
- Although the personnel committee applied a rule that conversion would not be allowed if the average score of the committee members’ evaluations was below 60 points, there was no provision at all establishing the basis for this 60-point threshold;
- All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective;
- Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that there were no reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that the dismissal disposition in this case constituted an unfair dismissal that infringed the employee’s expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract.
In addition, considering that the employee clearly wished for monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and that the relationship of trust between the parties appeared no longer maintainable, the panel found it appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. It determined 12,301,320 KRW to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, where the Rules of Employment, collective agreements, recruitment notices, etc. contain specific provisions stating that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible,” and such procedures are actually being implemented, an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract may be recognized.
If conversion to an open-ended contract is refused on the basis of performance evaluation results, you should carefully check:
- whether the evaluation criteria were disclosed in advance;
- whether there are any provisions establishing the basis for the score cut-off;
- whether the evaluators actually know your work; and
- whether specific reasons for the evaluation have been recorded.
Furthermore, even where the Labor Relations Commission finds that refusal of conversion to an open-ended contract is unjust, it may still resolve the dispute by issuing a monetary compensation order if the employee prefers monetary compensation over reinstatement and if it determines that the relationship of trust cannot be restored. Accordingly, you should strategically choose your remedy (reinstatement vs. monetary compensation) in light of your future career plans.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When operating a system for converting fixed-term employees to open-ended contracts, if you specify the conditions and procedures for conversion in the Rules of Employment, internal guidelines, recruitment notices, etc., you must design the system on the premise that this may confer an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract on employees.
If you intend to make the personnel committee’s evaluation a key criterion for determining conversion, you should:
- clearly establish, in internal regulations, the basis for the evaluation items, scoring, and cut-off (e.g., a 60-point threshold);
- constitute the evaluation committee with supervisors or related persons who actually know the employee’s work; and
- leave at least brief written records of the reasons for the evaluations.
Reasons for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract must be based on objective facts—such as poor work performance or repeated lack of sincerity—rather than on vague personality assessments, and you should accumulate supporting materials in advance (work evaluation forms, interview records, warning letters, etc.) in order to have reasonable grounds recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
In the event of an unfair dismissal dispute, the standard of review applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts is “considerable reasonableness in light of social norms.” You should therefore bear in mind that it will be difficult to defend your position merely by asserting that “the personnel committee decided so.”
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly shows that, where an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized, merely formal or arbitrary use of performance evaluations may lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. Workplaces operating similar systems should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, re-examine in advance their Rules of Employment, conversion criteria, and performance evaluation procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
B. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract
Although the personnel committee applied a rule that, where the average of the committee members’ evaluation scores was below 60 points, conversion to an open-ended contract would not be allowed, there was no provision establishing the basis for the 60-point threshold. All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective. Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
C. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
As the employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and it was determined that there was no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, it was found appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. The amount of monetary compensation was deemed appropriate at 12,301,320 KRW.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there exists an expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract
In light of the fact that Article 13(1) (Functions of the Personnel Committee) of the Rules of Employment for Open-Ended Contract Workers and the recruitment notice dated 14 June 2023 explicitly stated that “conversion to an open-ended contract is possible through screening based on work attitude, work performance ratings, etc.,” thereby providing a regulatory basis for conversion to an open-ended contract, the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract is recognized.
B. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract
Although the personnel committee applied a rule that, where the average of the committee members’ evaluation scores was below 60 points, conversion to an open-ended contract would not be allowed, there was no provision establishing the basis for the 60-point threshold. All three evaluators had never worked with the employee, making it difficult to regard their evaluation of the employee’s work performance, job execution ability, and work attitude as fair and objective. Among the evaluation items on the screening form, “job execution ability” was strongly qualitative in nature, yet all three committee members gave ratings of “average” or “insufficient,” and in particular, for the sub-item “sense of responsibility and sincerity,” all three gave the lowest score, while the grounds for such scoring were unclear. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were reasonable grounds for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
C. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
As the employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and it was determined that there was no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, it was found appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. The amount of monetary compensation was deemed appropriate at 12,301,320 KRW. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation right to conversion to open-ended contract (qualitative evaluation by personnel committee), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Probationary Dismissal (Probation Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the expectation right to conversion to an open-ended contract (qualitative evaluation by personnel committee) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation Right to Conversion to Open-Ended Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
