Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Dismissal (Refusal of Regular Employment after 3-Month Probation)” (Unfair Dismissal 154)
- Date2026/01/28 04:04
- Read 231
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (notification of refusal of regular employment after a 3‑month probation).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9293 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Key Issue Summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer hired the employee on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period and, at the end of that period, notified the employee that “it is difficult to continue your employment,” thereby refusing regular employment. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. As in many unfair dismissal cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused its review on whether the notice at the end of the probationary period constituted a dismissal and, if so, whether it was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, where the employer, at the end of a 3‑month probationary period, merely gives an oral notice of “refusal of regular employment” without stating specific reasons, such action can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had been hired on the premise of a 3‑month probationary period, that at the end of that period the employer notified the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment, and that no objective evidence had been submitted to show that the employment relationship was terminated by voluntary resignation or mutual agreement.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will, and that a dismissal had in fact occurred.
The panel further noted that the probationary/trial employment system is a mechanism by which the employer reserves the right to terminate in order to assess the employee’s job suitability, and that, for this reason, justification may be recognized more broadly than for ordinary dismissals. However, even in such cases, there must still be objective and reasonable grounds under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal must be deemed appropriate under generally accepted social norms. In addition, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer must notify the employee in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal.
Nevertheless, the employer in this case merely informed the employee orally, using the abstract expression that “it is difficult to continue your employment,” without presenting any specific evaluation results regarding work attitude, performance, or competence, and failed to provide any written notice of dismissal. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unjustified both in terms of grounds and procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be recognized that, even during the probationary period or at its conclusion, if the employer unilaterally ends the employment relationship, this constitutes a “dismissal” and may be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In particular, if the employer has not provided written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, there is a high likelihood of a procedural violation. It is therefore important to secure as much evidence as possible regarding the circumstances of the dismissal notice, such as contemporaneous conversations, text or messenger messages, and HR documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that refusal of regular employment for probationary/trial employees also constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. The perception that “because the employee is on probation, we can terminate freely” is extremely risky. Employers should establish in advance the criteria for evaluating work attitude, performance, and suitability during the probationary period, document the results, and, when refusing regular employment, ensure that they provide a written notice specifying the concrete reasons and the timing of the dismissal.
Finally, unlike managerial dismissals such as collective redundancies, probationary dismissals focus on the individual employee’s job suitability. In practice, the extent to which evaluation criteria and records, as well as written notice procedures, have been properly established and followed will determine whether the dismissal is found justified by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This should always be kept in mind in day‑to‑day HR management.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of a Dismissal
Considering that the employee was hired on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period; that the employer, upon notifying the employee of the end of the probationary period, informed the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment; and that no evidence was submitted to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, the panel found that a dismissal existed.
b. Justification of the Dismissal
Considering that the employer merely stated that it would be difficult to continue the employment without informing the employee of the reasons for refusing regular employment, and that the employer only notified the employee orally and failed to fulfill the obligation under the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the panel found that the dismissal was unjustified in both grounds and procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of a Dismissal
Considering that the employee was hired on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period; that the employer, upon notifying the employee of the end of the probationary period, informed the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment; and that no evidence was submitted to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, the panel found that a dismissal existed.
b. Justification of the Dismissal
Considering that the employer merely stated that it would be difficult to continue the employment without informing the employee of the reasons for refusing regular employment, and that the employer only notified the employee orally and failed to fulfill the obligation under the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the panel found that the dismissal was unjustified in both grounds and procedure. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark during Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Application Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal of regular employment after 3‑month probation), trial-period dismissal, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Scope of Legal Application (Small Workplace with Fewer than 5 Regular Employees)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (refusal of regular employment after 3‑month probation) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents on Probationary Dismissal (Refusal of Regular Employment after 3‑Month Probation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (notification of refusal of regular employment after a 3‑month probation).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9293 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Key Issue Summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer hired the employee on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period and, at the end of that period, notified the employee that “it is difficult to continue your employment,” thereby refusing regular employment. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. As in many unfair dismissal cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused its review on whether the notice at the end of the probationary period constituted a dismissal and, if so, whether it was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, where the employer, at the end of a 3‑month probationary period, merely gives an oral notice of “refusal of regular employment” without stating specific reasons, such action can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had been hired on the premise of a 3‑month probationary period, that at the end of that period the employer notified the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment, and that no objective evidence had been submitted to show that the employment relationship was terminated by voluntary resignation or mutual agreement.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will, and that a dismissal had in fact occurred.
The panel further noted that the probationary/trial employment system is a mechanism by which the employer reserves the right to terminate in order to assess the employee’s job suitability, and that, for this reason, justification may be recognized more broadly than for ordinary dismissals. However, even in such cases, there must still be objective and reasonable grounds under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal must be deemed appropriate under generally accepted social norms. In addition, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer must notify the employee in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal.
Nevertheless, the employer in this case merely informed the employee orally, using the abstract expression that “it is difficult to continue your employment,” without presenting any specific evaluation results regarding work attitude, performance, or competence, and failed to provide any written notice of dismissal. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unjustified both in terms of grounds and procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be recognized that, even during the probationary period or at its conclusion, if the employer unilaterally ends the employment relationship, this constitutes a “dismissal” and may be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In particular, if the employer has not provided written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, there is a high likelihood of a procedural violation. It is therefore important to secure as much evidence as possible regarding the circumstances of the dismissal notice, such as contemporaneous conversations, text or messenger messages, and HR documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that refusal of regular employment for probationary/trial employees also constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. The perception that “because the employee is on probation, we can terminate freely” is extremely risky. Employers should establish in advance the criteria for evaluating work attitude, performance, and suitability during the probationary period, document the results, and, when refusing regular employment, ensure that they provide a written notice specifying the concrete reasons and the timing of the dismissal.
Finally, unlike managerial dismissals such as collective redundancies, probationary dismissals focus on the individual employee’s job suitability. In practice, the extent to which evaluation criteria and records, as well as written notice procedures, have been properly established and followed will determine whether the dismissal is found justified by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This should always be kept in mind in day‑to‑day HR management.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of a Dismissal
Considering that the employee was hired on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period; that the employer, upon notifying the employee of the end of the probationary period, informed the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment; and that no evidence was submitted to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, the panel found that a dismissal existed.
b. Justification of the Dismissal
Considering that the employer merely stated that it would be difficult to continue the employment without informing the employee of the reasons for refusing regular employment, and that the employer only notified the employee orally and failed to fulfill the obligation under the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the panel found that the dismissal was unjustified in both grounds and procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of a Dismissal
Considering that the employee was hired on the basis of a 3‑month probationary period; that the employer, upon notifying the employee of the end of the probationary period, informed the employee that it would be difficult to continue the employment and refused regular employment; and that no evidence was submitted to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, the panel found that a dismissal existed.
b. Justification of the Dismissal
Considering that the employer merely stated that it would be difficult to continue the employment without informing the employee of the reasons for refusing regular employment, and that the employer only notified the employee orally and failed to fulfill the obligation under the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal, the panel found that the dismissal was unjustified in both grounds and procedure. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark during Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Application Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal of regular employment after 3‑month probation), trial-period dismissal, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Scope of Legal Application (Small Workplace with Fewer than 5 Regular Employees)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (refusal of regular employment after 3‑month probation) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents on Probationary Dismissal (Refusal of Regular Employment after 3‑Month Probation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
