Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning the Exercise of the Right to Terminate a Probationary Employment Contract (Casino Table Game Trainee) (Unfair Dismissal 274)
- Date2026/03/10 04:13
- Read 213
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal Case No. 228 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.14 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when trainee employees who were scheduled to perform casino table game dealing duties were denied regular employment at the end of their probationary period and, claiming that this amounted to unfair dismissal, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether unfair dismissal had occurred and whether the procedures for refusing regular employment were lawful. The Commission ultimately found in favor of the employer and dismissed the employees’ applications for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the refusal of regular employment based on the assessment results during the three‑month probationary period stipulated in the employment contract and the rules of employment constitutes an exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employment contract with just cause under the Labor Standards Act that is reasonable in light of social norms, and whether any procedural defects—such as failure to convene a personnel committee—are serious enough to amount to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the probationary period was expressly set at three months in the employment contract and the rules of employment, and that those documents provided that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability. It further noted that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case received significantly lower ratings than other probationary employees who joined at the same time in the items of responsibility and technical competence, including in terms of the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and the number of days attended.
In light of the established case law that, although a broader scope of justification is recognized for termination at the probationary or trial stage than for ordinary dismissal, there must still be objective and reasonable grounds and the termination must be acceptable in light of social norms, the panel found that the negative assessment of job suitability in this case met those standards.
Accordingly, the termination at issue constituted a refusal of regular employment based on a negative assessment of the probationary employees’ job suitability and thus amounted to a legitimate exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employment contract.
In addition, considering the provisions of the rules of employment regarding the personnel committee and the actual practice of its operation, the failure to submit the refusal of regular employment as a separate agenda item to the personnel committee was deemed to fall within the scope of comprehensive and implied delegation to the representative director and the respective line managers. In light of case law indicating that disciplinary procedures are not automatically applicable to refusals of regular employment at the probationary or trial stage, the panel held that it was difficult to find any procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, even under a probationary or trial employment contract, termination may still constitute “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and if the evaluation is unfair or discriminatory, there may be grounds to challenge it as unfair dismissal or an unfair labor practice.
However, as in this case, where objective evaluation data (error rates, attendance rates, evaluation forms, etc.) clearly show a disadvantage compared to other employees on probation in the same role, the legitimacy of exercising the right to terminate a probationary employment contract is likely to be broadly recognized. Therefore, during the probationary period, employees should keep records of any comments or warnings regarding attendance, job performance, and attitude, and should endeavor to confirm and, where necessary, raise objections to the evaluation criteria and results in advance.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary or trial employment system, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and rules of employment the length of the probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility and criteria for refusal of regular employment.
Furthermore, as in this case, retaining data on quantifiable indicators such as table game dealing errors, pay (payout) errors, and number of days attended, as well as comparative data with other probationary employees, will be highly useful in proving that there are objective and reasonable grounds for exercising the right to terminate a probationary employment contract.
Regardless of whether a personnel committee is convened, it is also beneficial for preventing disputes to clarify which body or position has in practice been making decisions on regular employment, to organize that practice, and to more clearly reflect the delegation relationship in the rules of employment or internal regulations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
In light of the fact that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case were assessed as falling significantly short of the average of other probationary employees who joined at the same time in terms of responsibility and technical competence—specifically, in the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and in the number of days attended—the assessment of job unsuitability must be regarded as reasonable in light of social norms. Accordingly, the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment is recognized.
B. Legality of the Procedures for Refusal of Regular Employment
Taking into comprehensive consideration Article 98 of the rules of employment (scope of delegation) and the fact that there had been no prior cases in which the personnel committee was convened with refusal of regular employment as an agenda item, it can be viewed that the personnel committee comprehensively and implicitly delegated this matter to the representative director and the respective line managers. Therefore, it is difficult to find any procedural defect in relation to the refusal of regular employment.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
In light of the fact that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case were assessed as falling significantly short of the average of other probationary employees who joined at the same time in terms of responsibility and technical competence—specifically, in the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and in the number of days attended—the assessment of job unsuitability must be regarded as reasonable in light of social norms. Accordingly, the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment is recognized.
B. Legality of the Procedures for Refusal of Regular Employment
Taking into comprehensive consideration Article 98 of the rules of employment (scope of delegation) and the fact that there had been no prior cases in which the personnel committee was convened with refusal of regular employment as an agenda item, it can be viewed that the personnel committee comprehensively and implicitly delegated this matter to the representative director and the respective line managers. Therefore, it is difficult to find any procedural defect in relation to the refusal of regular employment. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measures (Dispute over Change of Timing of Annual Leave)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee), probationary 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measures (Dispute over Change of Timing of Annual Leave),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate a Probationary Employment Contract (Casino Table Game Trainee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal Case No. 228 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.14 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when trainee employees who were scheduled to perform casino table game dealing duties were denied regular employment at the end of their probationary period and, claiming that this amounted to unfair dismissal, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether unfair dismissal had occurred and whether the procedures for refusing regular employment were lawful. The Commission ultimately found in favor of the employer and dismissed the employees’ applications for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the refusal of regular employment based on the assessment results during the three‑month probationary period stipulated in the employment contract and the rules of employment constitutes an exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employment contract with just cause under the Labor Standards Act that is reasonable in light of social norms, and whether any procedural defects—such as failure to convene a personnel committee—are serious enough to amount to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the probationary period was expressly set at three months in the employment contract and the rules of employment, and that those documents provided that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability. It further noted that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case received significantly lower ratings than other probationary employees who joined at the same time in the items of responsibility and technical competence, including in terms of the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and the number of days attended.
In light of the established case law that, although a broader scope of justification is recognized for termination at the probationary or trial stage than for ordinary dismissal, there must still be objective and reasonable grounds and the termination must be acceptable in light of social norms, the panel found that the negative assessment of job suitability in this case met those standards.
Accordingly, the termination at issue constituted a refusal of regular employment based on a negative assessment of the probationary employees’ job suitability and thus amounted to a legitimate exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employment contract.
In addition, considering the provisions of the rules of employment regarding the personnel committee and the actual practice of its operation, the failure to submit the refusal of regular employment as a separate agenda item to the personnel committee was deemed to fall within the scope of comprehensive and implied delegation to the representative director and the respective line managers. In light of case law indicating that disciplinary procedures are not automatically applicable to refusals of regular employment at the probationary or trial stage, the panel held that it was difficult to find any procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, even under a probationary or trial employment contract, termination may still constitute “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and if the evaluation is unfair or discriminatory, there may be grounds to challenge it as unfair dismissal or an unfair labor practice.
However, as in this case, where objective evaluation data (error rates, attendance rates, evaluation forms, etc.) clearly show a disadvantage compared to other employees on probation in the same role, the legitimacy of exercising the right to terminate a probationary employment contract is likely to be broadly recognized. Therefore, during the probationary period, employees should keep records of any comments or warnings regarding attendance, job performance, and attitude, and should endeavor to confirm and, where necessary, raise objections to the evaluation criteria and results in advance.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary or trial employment system, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and rules of employment the length of the probationary period, the evaluation items, and the possibility and criteria for refusal of regular employment.
Furthermore, as in this case, retaining data on quantifiable indicators such as table game dealing errors, pay (payout) errors, and number of days attended, as well as comparative data with other probationary employees, will be highly useful in proving that there are objective and reasonable grounds for exercising the right to terminate a probationary employment contract.
Regardless of whether a personnel committee is convened, it is also beneficial for preventing disputes to clarify which body or position has in practice been making decisions on regular employment, to organize that practice, and to more clearly reflect the delegation relationship in the rules of employment or internal regulations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
In light of the fact that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case were assessed as falling significantly short of the average of other probationary employees who joined at the same time in terms of responsibility and technical competence—specifically, in the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and in the number of days attended—the assessment of job unsuitability must be regarded as reasonable in light of social norms. Accordingly, the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment is recognized.
B. Legality of the Procedures for Refusal of Regular Employment
Taking into comprehensive consideration Article 98 of the rules of employment (scope of delegation) and the fact that there had been no prior cases in which the personnel committee was convened with refusal of regular employment as an agenda item, it can be viewed that the personnel committee comprehensively and implicitly delegated this matter to the representative director and the respective line managers. Therefore, it is difficult to find any procedural defect in relation to the refusal of regular employment.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment
Under Article 5 of the employment contract concluded between the parties and Article 4 of the rules of employment, the probationary period was set at three months from the date of joining the company, and it was stipulated that the employment contract could be terminated during the probationary period based on an assessment of job suitability.
In light of the fact that, according to the probationary evaluation forms, the employees in this case were assessed as falling significantly short of the average of other probationary employees who joined at the same time in terms of responsibility and technical competence—specifically, in the level of errors in table game dealing and pay (payout) calculations and in the number of days attended—the assessment of job unsuitability must be regarded as reasonable in light of social norms. Accordingly, the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment is recognized.
B. Legality of the Procedures for Refusal of Regular Employment
Taking into comprehensive consideration Article 98 of the rules of employment (scope of delegation) and the fact that there had been no prior cases in which the personnel committee was convened with refusal of regular employment as an agenda item, it can be viewed that the personnel committee comprehensively and implicitly delegated this matter to the representative director and the respective line managers. Therefore, it is difficult to find any procedural defect in relation to the refusal of regular employment. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measures (Dispute over Change of Timing of Annual Leave)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee), probationary 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measures (Dispute over Change of Timing of Annual Leave),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the right to terminate a probationary employment contract (casino table game trainee) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate a Probationary Employment Contract (Casino Table Game Trainee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
