Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Probationary Dismissal (Inadequate Team Leader Performance)” (Unfair Dismissal 276)
- Date2026/03/11 04:09
- Read 229
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 9500 ○ ○ ○
Decision date: 2026.01.13 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
This article introduces a decision in which the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission sided with the employer in an unfair dismissal case concerning refusal to confirm employment after a probationary period. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, we summarize implications that may be useful in practice for unfair dismissal and labor commission relief applications.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was hired as a team leader, with a three‑month probationary period specified in the employment contract, and upon joining the company also signed an “Employee Evaluation Pledge” that set out the method of probationary evaluation and the criteria for personnel measures.
Before the full probationary period had elapsed, the employer notified the employee of the end of the probationary period and refusal of confirmation of employment, relying on the evaluation results and consistent opinions from colleagues that the employee’s work performance was inadequate. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where the probationary period is set as “within three months,” a refusal to confirm employment made before the expiry of the three‑month period constitutes unfair dismissal, and whether the grounds and procedures for such refusal are justifiable.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract and work rules specified a three‑month (within three months) probationary period; that the “Employee Evaluation Pledge” had given prior notice that an evaluation would be conducted before the end of the probationary period and that personnel measures would be taken based on the evaluation results, and the employee had agreed to this; that there had been an interview with the plant manager and consistent evaluations by colleagues that the employee’s work performance was inadequate; that it was difficult to conclude that the scores on the evaluation form clearly lacked objectivity, and there was no evidence that the evaluation was unfair; and that the notice of the end of the probationary period stated specific reasons for dismissal (unsuitability in terms of work performance and team leader role), making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of these factors, the Commission found that the employee held the status of a probationary employee; that the employer’s refusal to confirm employment constituted the exercise, during the probationary period, of a reserved right to terminate, which was reasonable under social norms; and that both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) were justifiable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
At the hiring stage, employees should carefully check how probation/trial periods, criteria for refusal of confirmation of employment, and evaluation methods are stipulated in the employment contract, work rules, pledges, and similar documents.
In addition, during the probationary period, interviews with superiors, peer evaluations, and performance indicators can all serve as materials for determining whether to confirm employment. If you feel there are unfair elements in the evaluation process, it is important to record objections at the time via email, minutes of meetings, messenger messages, and so on, as these may become crucial evidence in any future dispute over unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important that the work rules, employment contract, and any pledge relating to probation/trial periods clearly state that “during the probationary (or trial) period, job suitability will be evaluated and the decision on confirmation of employment will be made, and if the employee is found unsuitable, confirmation of employment may be refused,” and that this is fully explained and signed at the time of hiring.
Furthermore, with respect to probationary employees, the period, method, and criteria for evaluation should be set in advance, and the contents of interviews with superiors, peer evaluations, and evaluation forms should be documented to ensure objectivity and fairness. The notice of refusal to confirm employment should specify concrete reasons for unsuitability so as to minimize disputes over procedural fairness.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
The parties specified a three‑month probationary period when entering into the employment contract, and the employee signed the “Employee Evaluation Pledge,” which had given notice of probationary evaluations at the time of joining the company. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to have held the status of a probationary employee.
b. Whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified
The employee argued that it was unfair to notify the end of the probationary period even before the three‑month probationary period had expired. However:
① The work rules provide for a probationary period of “within three months,” and the Employee Evaluation Pledge specifies that the timing of the evaluation is before the end of the probationary period; therefore, it is reasonable to view the three‑month probationary period as indicating the upper limit of the probationary period.
② At the time of joining the company, the employee confirmed and signed, via the Employee Evaluation Pledge, the personnel measures to be taken based on evaluation grades and scores.
③ It appears that the plant manager, in the course of interviews with the employee, indicated that improvement was necessary, and that colleagues consistently evaluated the employee as lacking in work performance.
④ It is difficult to categorically conclude that the scores on the evaluation form were clearly non‑objective, and no other evidentiary materials were found that would support a finding that the evaluation of the employee was unfair.
⑤ The notice of the end of the probationary period stated that “it has been determined that you do not meet the required work performance and team leader role,” and thus it is also difficult to find that there was any procedural defect. Accordingly, both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) are justifiable.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
The parties specified a three‑month probationary period when entering into the employment contract, and the employee signed the “Employee Evaluation Pledge,” which had given notice of probationary evaluations at the time of joining the company. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to have held the status of a probationary employee.
b. Whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified
The employee argued that it was unfair to notify the end of the probationary period even before the three‑month probationary period had expired. However:
① The work rules provide for a probationary period of “within three months,” and the Employee Evaluation Pledge specifies that the timing of the evaluation is before the end of the probationary period; therefore, it is reasonable to view the three‑month probationary period as indicating the upper limit of the probationary period.
② At the time of joining the company, the employee confirmed and signed, via the Employee Evaluation Pledge, the personnel measures to be taken based on evaluation grades and scores.
③ It appears that the plant manager, in the course of interviews with the employee, indicated that improvement was necessary, and that colleagues consistently evaluated the employee as lacking in work performance.
④ It is difficult to categorically conclude that the scores on the evaluation form were clearly non‑objective, and no other evidentiary materials were found that would support a finding that the evaluation of the employee was unfair.
⑤ The notice of the end of the probationary period stated that “it has been determined that you do not meet the required work performance and team leader role,” and thus it is also difficult to find that there was any procedural defect. Accordingly, both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) are justifiable. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Suspension from Duty (Conflict Site Between Supervising Engineer and Chief Supervising Engineer)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance), trial-period dismissal, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Suspension from Duty (Conflict Site Between Supervising Engineer and Chief Supervising Engineer)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Inadequate Team Leader Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 9500 ○ ○ ○
Decision date: 2026.01.13 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
This article introduces a decision in which the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission sided with the employer in an unfair dismissal case concerning refusal to confirm employment after a probationary period. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, we summarize implications that may be useful in practice for unfair dismissal and labor commission relief applications.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was hired as a team leader, with a three‑month probationary period specified in the employment contract, and upon joining the company also signed an “Employee Evaluation Pledge” that set out the method of probationary evaluation and the criteria for personnel measures.
Before the full probationary period had elapsed, the employer notified the employee of the end of the probationary period and refusal of confirmation of employment, relying on the evaluation results and consistent opinions from colleagues that the employee’s work performance was inadequate. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where the probationary period is set as “within three months,” a refusal to confirm employment made before the expiry of the three‑month period constitutes unfair dismissal, and whether the grounds and procedures for such refusal are justifiable.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract and work rules specified a three‑month (within three months) probationary period; that the “Employee Evaluation Pledge” had given prior notice that an evaluation would be conducted before the end of the probationary period and that personnel measures would be taken based on the evaluation results, and the employee had agreed to this; that there had been an interview with the plant manager and consistent evaluations by colleagues that the employee’s work performance was inadequate; that it was difficult to conclude that the scores on the evaluation form clearly lacked objectivity, and there was no evidence that the evaluation was unfair; and that the notice of the end of the probationary period stated specific reasons for dismissal (unsuitability in terms of work performance and team leader role), making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of these factors, the Commission found that the employee held the status of a probationary employee; that the employer’s refusal to confirm employment constituted the exercise, during the probationary period, of a reserved right to terminate, which was reasonable under social norms; and that both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) were justifiable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
At the hiring stage, employees should carefully check how probation/trial periods, criteria for refusal of confirmation of employment, and evaluation methods are stipulated in the employment contract, work rules, pledges, and similar documents.
In addition, during the probationary period, interviews with superiors, peer evaluations, and performance indicators can all serve as materials for determining whether to confirm employment. If you feel there are unfair elements in the evaluation process, it is important to record objections at the time via email, minutes of meetings, messenger messages, and so on, as these may become crucial evidence in any future dispute over unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important that the work rules, employment contract, and any pledge relating to probation/trial periods clearly state that “during the probationary (or trial) period, job suitability will be evaluated and the decision on confirmation of employment will be made, and if the employee is found unsuitable, confirmation of employment may be refused,” and that this is fully explained and signed at the time of hiring.
Furthermore, with respect to probationary employees, the period, method, and criteria for evaluation should be set in advance, and the contents of interviews with superiors, peer evaluations, and evaluation forms should be documented to ensure objectivity and fairness. The notice of refusal to confirm employment should specify concrete reasons for unsuitability so as to minimize disputes over procedural fairness.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
The parties specified a three‑month probationary period when entering into the employment contract, and the employee signed the “Employee Evaluation Pledge,” which had given notice of probationary evaluations at the time of joining the company. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to have held the status of a probationary employee.
b. Whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified
The employee argued that it was unfair to notify the end of the probationary period even before the three‑month probationary period had expired. However:
① The work rules provide for a probationary period of “within three months,” and the Employee Evaluation Pledge specifies that the timing of the evaluation is before the end of the probationary period; therefore, it is reasonable to view the three‑month probationary period as indicating the upper limit of the probationary period.
② At the time of joining the company, the employee confirmed and signed, via the Employee Evaluation Pledge, the personnel measures to be taken based on evaluation grades and scores.
③ It appears that the plant manager, in the course of interviews with the employee, indicated that improvement was necessary, and that colleagues consistently evaluated the employee as lacking in work performance.
④ It is difficult to categorically conclude that the scores on the evaluation form were clearly non‑objective, and no other evidentiary materials were found that would support a finding that the evaluation of the employee was unfair.
⑤ The notice of the end of the probationary period stated that “it has been determined that you do not meet the required work performance and team leader role,” and thus it is also difficult to find that there was any procedural defect. Accordingly, both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) are justifiable.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the employee was a probationary employee
The parties specified a three‑month probationary period when entering into the employment contract, and the employee signed the “Employee Evaluation Pledge,” which had given notice of probationary evaluations at the time of joining the company. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to have held the status of a probationary employee.
b. Whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified
The employee argued that it was unfair to notify the end of the probationary period even before the three‑month probationary period had expired. However:
① The work rules provide for a probationary period of “within three months,” and the Employee Evaluation Pledge specifies that the timing of the evaluation is before the end of the probationary period; therefore, it is reasonable to view the three‑month probationary period as indicating the upper limit of the probationary period.
② At the time of joining the company, the employee confirmed and signed, via the Employee Evaluation Pledge, the personnel measures to be taken based on evaluation grades and scores.
③ It appears that the plant manager, in the course of interviews with the employee, indicated that improvement was necessary, and that colleagues consistently evaluated the employee as lacking in work performance.
④ It is difficult to categorically conclude that the scores on the evaluation form were clearly non‑objective, and no other evidentiary materials were found that would support a finding that the evaluation of the employee was unfair.
⑤ The notice of the end of the probationary period stated that “it has been determined that you do not meet the required work performance and team leader role,” and thus it is also difficult to find that there was any procedural defect. Accordingly, both the grounds and procedures for the dismissal (refusal to confirm employment) are justifiable. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Suspension from Duty (Conflict Site Between Supervising Engineer and Chief Supervising Engineer)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance), trial-period dismissal, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Suspension from Duty (Conflict Site Between Supervising Engineer and Chief Supervising Engineer)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (inadequate team leader performance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Inadequate Team Leader Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
