Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Probationary Dismissal (Safety Manager Unreachable)” (Unfair Dismissal 174)
- Date2026/02/03 04:14
- Read 226
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9085 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced or not, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) the employee began work in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee hired as a safety manager at a construction site was notified of dismissal (refusal of regular employment) during the initial three‑month probationary period under the employment contract. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively reviewing the probation clause in the employment contract presented by the employer, the actual work commencement date and timing of dismissal, the employee’s work attitude, and whether the employee failed to comply with directions and orders, did not accept the employee’s arguments. For Labor Law Firm Law&, this decision reaffirmed the criteria for determining the legitimacy of probationary dismissals.
The employee refused to sign the employment contract prepared by the employer and instead presented a standard employment contract drafted by the employee, arguing that a probationary period had not been clearly established and that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted. The employer, on the other hand, argued that refusal of regular employment upon completion of the probationary period was justified, relying on the “first three months as probation” clause, the nature of the duties as a safety manager, the employee’s being unreachable and failure to comply with lawful orders, and the written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the probationary period specified in the employment contract presented by the employer was validly applicable to the employee, and whether the refusal of regular employment (probationary dismissal) based on the employee’s work attitude as a safety manager and being unreachable during the probationary period constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case placed weight on the following: the employment contract presented by the employer clearly stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, “the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract shall be treated as a probationary period”; the dismissal notice was given before three months had elapsed after the employee began work on 22 August 2025; and despite the employer’s request, the employee did not sign this employment contract and instead unilaterally sent a self‑drafted standard employment contract, so that a final agreement on the contract terms had not been completed.
The panel also noted that, although the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and for maintaining smooth communication, the employee became unreachable, resulting in issues of non‑compliance with lawful orders. The employer, citing these reasons, decided to refuse regular employment within the probationary period and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date (13 October 2025). Taking into account the legal principle that the employer’s right to terminate during a probationary period is recognized more broadly than in ordinary dismissals, the panel found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment and that there were no procedural defects.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held not to be an unfair dismissal lacking just cause under the Labor Standards Act, but a lawful refusal of regular employment upon the expiration of the probationary period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, probation clauses in employment contracts presented at the time of hiring should not be taken lightly. You should clearly confirm and negotiate what period and evaluation criteria will actually apply before signing. Even during the probationary period, issues of attitude such as failing to comply with the employer’s directions and orders or becoming unreachable may be evaluated as “lack of job suitability” and may constitute grounds for refusal of regular employment. This is particularly true for positions with significant responsibility, such as safety managers, where it is essential to strictly adhere to basic reporting and communication protocols.
Employees should also be aware that simply refusing to sign the employer’s contract and instead submitting a self‑drafted standard employment contract makes it difficult, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, to enforce contract terms favorable to themselves. Where the existence or scope of a probationary period may be disputed, it is advisable to clearly record any disagreements at the contract‑drafting stage and, if necessary, seek prior advice from a labor law specialist (for example, Labor Law Firm Law&).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate the probationary period in the work rules or employment contract, for example, “All new hires (including experienced hires) shall be on probation for the first three months,” and, at the time of hiring, to explain this concretely and obtain written consent. Although dismissal or refusal of regular employment during the probationary period is more broadly recognized than ordinary dismissal, the employer must still satisfy the “just cause” requirement under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the obligation to provide written notice. Therefore, specific facts concerning work attitude, being unreachable, non‑compliance with orders, etc., should be documented through logs, text messages, emails, and the like.
In particular, for core safety and health positions such as safety managers, delays in preparing safety management plans, failures to report, and being unreachable can directly lead to on‑site risks. Accordingly, from the early stages of the probationary period, employers should systematically manage records of interviews, work instructions, and feedback so that the reasonableness of refusing regular employment can be more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. If issues are anticipated in the design and operation of the probation system, it is advisable to seek assistance from a professional organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish probation evaluation criteria and dismissal procedures in advance.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) three months had not elapsed from 22 August 2025, when the employee began work; (3) despite the employer’s request to execute the employment contract, the employee, without any particular comment, refused to sign it and instead sent the employer a standard employment contract that the employee had drafted and signed, so that the employment contract was not finally concluded; (4) the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and similar tasks and was required to perform duties through smooth communication, but became unreachable, and the employer cited non‑compliance with lawful orders on this basis; (5) although the employee argued that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted, the employer cited three grounds and the fact that the dismissal occurred within the probationary period, and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date as 13 October 2025. In light of all these circumstances, there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment, and there were no procedural defects, so the notice of probationary termination was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) three months had not elapsed from 22 August 2025, when the employee began work; (3) despite the employer’s request to execute the employment contract, the employee, without any particular comment, refused to sign it and instead sent the employer a standard employment contract that the employee had drafted and signed, so that the employment contract was not finally concluded; (4) the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and similar tasks and was required to perform duties through smooth communication, but became unreachable, and the employer cited non‑compliance with lawful orders on this basis; (5) although the employee argued that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted, the employer cited three grounds and the fact that the dismissal occurred within the probationary period, and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date as 13 October 2025. In light of all these circumstances, there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment, and there were no procedural defects, so the notice of probationary termination was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal of Regular Employment After Trial Period (1‑Month Probation at a Private Academy)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable), dismissal during trial period, 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 ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (One‑Month Unauthorised Absence)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Safety Manager Unreachable).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9085 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced or not, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) the employee began work in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee hired as a safety manager at a construction site was notified of dismissal (refusal of regular employment) during the initial three‑month probationary period under the employment contract. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively reviewing the probation clause in the employment contract presented by the employer, the actual work commencement date and timing of dismissal, the employee’s work attitude, and whether the employee failed to comply with directions and orders, did not accept the employee’s arguments. For Labor Law Firm Law&, this decision reaffirmed the criteria for determining the legitimacy of probationary dismissals.
The employee refused to sign the employment contract prepared by the employer and instead presented a standard employment contract drafted by the employee, arguing that a probationary period had not been clearly established and that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted. The employer, on the other hand, argued that refusal of regular employment upon completion of the probationary period was justified, relying on the “first three months as probation” clause, the nature of the duties as a safety manager, the employee’s being unreachable and failure to comply with lawful orders, and the written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the probationary period specified in the employment contract presented by the employer was validly applicable to the employee, and whether the refusal of regular employment (probationary dismissal) based on the employee’s work attitude as a safety manager and being unreachable during the probationary period constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case placed weight on the following: the employment contract presented by the employer clearly stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, “the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract shall be treated as a probationary period”; the dismissal notice was given before three months had elapsed after the employee began work on 22 August 2025; and despite the employer’s request, the employee did not sign this employment contract and instead unilaterally sent a self‑drafted standard employment contract, so that a final agreement on the contract terms had not been completed.
The panel also noted that, although the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and for maintaining smooth communication, the employee became unreachable, resulting in issues of non‑compliance with lawful orders. The employer, citing these reasons, decided to refuse regular employment within the probationary period and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date (13 October 2025). Taking into account the legal principle that the employer’s right to terminate during a probationary period is recognized more broadly than in ordinary dismissals, the panel found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment and that there were no procedural defects.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held not to be an unfair dismissal lacking just cause under the Labor Standards Act, but a lawful refusal of regular employment upon the expiration of the probationary period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, probation clauses in employment contracts presented at the time of hiring should not be taken lightly. You should clearly confirm and negotiate what period and evaluation criteria will actually apply before signing. Even during the probationary period, issues of attitude such as failing to comply with the employer’s directions and orders or becoming unreachable may be evaluated as “lack of job suitability” and may constitute grounds for refusal of regular employment. This is particularly true for positions with significant responsibility, such as safety managers, where it is essential to strictly adhere to basic reporting and communication protocols.
Employees should also be aware that simply refusing to sign the employer’s contract and instead submitting a self‑drafted standard employment contract makes it difficult, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, to enforce contract terms favorable to themselves. Where the existence or scope of a probationary period may be disputed, it is advisable to clearly record any disagreements at the contract‑drafting stage and, if necessary, seek prior advice from a labor law specialist (for example, Labor Law Firm Law&).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate the probationary period in the work rules or employment contract, for example, “All new hires (including experienced hires) shall be on probation for the first three months,” and, at the time of hiring, to explain this concretely and obtain written consent. Although dismissal or refusal of regular employment during the probationary period is more broadly recognized than ordinary dismissal, the employer must still satisfy the “just cause” requirement under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the obligation to provide written notice. Therefore, specific facts concerning work attitude, being unreachable, non‑compliance with orders, etc., should be documented through logs, text messages, emails, and the like.
In particular, for core safety and health positions such as safety managers, delays in preparing safety management plans, failures to report, and being unreachable can directly lead to on‑site risks. Accordingly, from the early stages of the probationary period, employers should systematically manage records of interviews, work instructions, and feedback so that the reasonableness of refusing regular employment can be more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. If issues are anticipated in the design and operation of the probation system, it is advisable to seek assistance from a professional organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish probation evaluation criteria and dismissal procedures in advance.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) three months had not elapsed from 22 August 2025, when the employee began work; (3) despite the employer’s request to execute the employment contract, the employee, without any particular comment, refused to sign it and instead sent the employer a standard employment contract that the employee had drafted and signed, so that the employment contract was not finally concluded; (4) the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and similar tasks and was required to perform duties through smooth communication, but became unreachable, and the employer cited non‑compliance with lawful orders on this basis; (5) although the employee argued that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted, the employer cited three grounds and the fact that the dismissal occurred within the probationary period, and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date as 13 October 2025. In light of all these circumstances, there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment, and there were no procedural defects, so the notice of probationary termination was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The employment contract presented by the employer stated that, regardless of whether the employee was experienced, the first three months from the commencement date of the employment contract would be treated as a probationary period; (2) three months had not elapsed from 22 August 2025, when the employee began work; (3) despite the employer’s request to execute the employment contract, the employee, without any particular comment, refused to sign it and instead sent the employer a standard employment contract that the employee had drafted and signed, so that the employment contract was not finally concluded; (4) the employee, as an on‑site safety manager, was responsible for preparing the safety management plan and similar tasks and was required to perform duties through smooth communication, but became unreachable, and the employer cited non‑compliance with lawful orders on this basis; (5) although the employee argued that the grounds for dismissal could not be accepted, the employer cited three grounds and the fact that the dismissal occurred within the probationary period, and notified the employee in writing, specifying the dismissal date as 13 October 2025. In light of all these circumstances, there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment, and there were no procedural defects, so the notice of probationary termination was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal of Regular Employment After Trial Period (1‑Month Probation at a Private Academy)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable), dismissal during trial period, 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 ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (One‑Month Unauthorised Absence)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (safety manager unreachable) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Safety Manager Unreachable).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
