Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (Verbal Promise by HR Officer)” (Unfair Dismissal 358)
- Date2026/04/08 04:13
- Read 175
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025BuHae10136 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.20 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) There was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, but there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this fact alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that, after the expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, he/she had an expectation of conversion to regular employment and that the termination upon expiry of the contract therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employment contract, rules of employment, and recruitment and HR practices, and focused its analysis on whether the employee could be recognized as having an expectation of conversion to regular employment.
Labor Law Firm Law& analyzes how the doctrines on expectation of conversion to regular employment and expectation of renewal are applied in unfair dismissal disputes of this kind, based on practical trends at the Labor Relations Commissions.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in the absence of any express provision on conversion to regular employment, an employee can be recognized as having an expectation of conversion to regular employment solely on the basis of an alleged verbal promise by an HR officer and the fact of having taken a conversion-to-regular-employment examination.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: there was no clause regarding conversion to regular employment in any of the employer’s internal regulations such as the employment contract or rules of employment; there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated authority to the HR officer, as alleged by the employee, to promise conversion to regular employment, or that the employer had promised such conversion; and even if the employee had taken a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, there was no express or implied promise confirmed that would guarantee conversion to regular employment or confer an expectation thereof merely by virtue of that fact.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation of conversion to employment without a fixed term (i.e., regular employment) had been formed on the part of the employee.
As the expectation of conversion to regular employment was not recognized, the panel determined that the termination in this case should be regarded as an automatic termination upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to be able to substantiate an expectation of conversion to regular employment through “documents and objective facts” such as the job posting, employment contract, rules of employment and HR regulations, guidelines on conversion to regular employment, the procedures for conversion screening, and past practices of conversion. Note that it is difficult to have such an expectation recognized based solely on an allegation of a verbal promise or the mere fact of having taken a conversion examination.
In addition, to assert an expectation of conversion to regular employment or of renewal, it is important to concretely整理 whether there were provisions or repeated practices to the effect that the company would convert or renew upon satisfaction of certain requirements, and whether you yourself met those criteria.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, if there is no intention to operate a conversion-to-regular-employment system, it is necessary to clearly state in the job posting and employment contract the contract term, whether there will be renewal or conversion, and, if there is any possibility of conversion, the conditions and procedures for such conversion, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over expectations of conversion to regular employment. If HR officers or managers are likely to make statements to employees implying conversion, the scope and limits of their authority should be clearly defined internally, and such statements should be managed so as not to conflict with official notices or guidelines.
Furthermore, where conversion examinations or screening procedures are operated, it should be clearly stated in recruitment notices, information sheets, consent forms, etc. that the process is “not a guarantee of conversion” and that “conversion, if any, will be decided at the company’s discretion after screening,” so as to reduce the likelihood of unfavorable interpretations by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: (i) there was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) although the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; and (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this circumstance alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed, and there was no circumstance in the course of the conversion examination that could be viewed as conferring an expectation of conversion to regular employment—
the Commission comprehensively considered these factors and concluded that the employee had no expectation of conversion to regular employment.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following: (i) there was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) although the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; and (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this circumstance alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed, and there was no circumstance in the course of the conversion examination that could be viewed as conferring an expectation of conversion to regular employment—
the Commission comprehensively considered these factors and concluded that the employee had no expectation of conversion to regular employment.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader’s Missing Funds)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 Case on Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader’s Missing Funds),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (Verbal Promise by HR Officer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025BuHae10136 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.20 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) There was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, but there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this fact alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that, after the expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, he/she had an expectation of conversion to regular employment and that the termination upon expiry of the contract therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employment contract, rules of employment, and recruitment and HR practices, and focused its analysis on whether the employee could be recognized as having an expectation of conversion to regular employment.
Labor Law Firm Law& analyzes how the doctrines on expectation of conversion to regular employment and expectation of renewal are applied in unfair dismissal disputes of this kind, based on practical trends at the Labor Relations Commissions.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in the absence of any express provision on conversion to regular employment, an employee can be recognized as having an expectation of conversion to regular employment solely on the basis of an alleged verbal promise by an HR officer and the fact of having taken a conversion-to-regular-employment examination.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: there was no clause regarding conversion to regular employment in any of the employer’s internal regulations such as the employment contract or rules of employment; there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated authority to the HR officer, as alleged by the employee, to promise conversion to regular employment, or that the employer had promised such conversion; and even if the employee had taken a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, there was no express or implied promise confirmed that would guarantee conversion to regular employment or confer an expectation thereof merely by virtue of that fact.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation of conversion to employment without a fixed term (i.e., regular employment) had been formed on the part of the employee.
As the expectation of conversion to regular employment was not recognized, the panel determined that the termination in this case should be regarded as an automatic termination upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to be able to substantiate an expectation of conversion to regular employment through “documents and objective facts” such as the job posting, employment contract, rules of employment and HR regulations, guidelines on conversion to regular employment, the procedures for conversion screening, and past practices of conversion. Note that it is difficult to have such an expectation recognized based solely on an allegation of a verbal promise or the mere fact of having taken a conversion examination.
In addition, to assert an expectation of conversion to regular employment or of renewal, it is important to concretely整理 whether there were provisions or repeated practices to the effect that the company would convert or renew upon satisfaction of certain requirements, and whether you yourself met those criteria.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, if there is no intention to operate a conversion-to-regular-employment system, it is necessary to clearly state in the job posting and employment contract the contract term, whether there will be renewal or conversion, and, if there is any possibility of conversion, the conditions and procedures for such conversion, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over expectations of conversion to regular employment. If HR officers or managers are likely to make statements to employees implying conversion, the scope and limits of their authority should be clearly defined internally, and such statements should be managed so as not to conflict with official notices or guidelines.
Furthermore, where conversion examinations or screening procedures are operated, it should be clearly stated in recruitment notices, information sheets, consent forms, etc. that the process is “not a guarantee of conversion” and that “conversion, if any, will be decided at the company’s discretion after screening,” so as to reduce the likelihood of unfavorable interpretations by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: (i) there was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) although the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; and (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this circumstance alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed, and there was no circumstance in the course of the conversion examination that could be viewed as conferring an expectation of conversion to regular employment—
the Commission comprehensively considered these factors and concluded that the employee had no expectation of conversion to regular employment.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following: (i) there was no provision regarding conversion to regular employment in the employment contract, rules of employment, etc.; (ii) although the employee asserted that, during the recruitment process and the drafting of the employment contract, the HR officer promised conversion to regular employment, there was no material indicating that the employer had delegated such authority to the HR officer or had promised conversion to regular employment; and (iii) although the employee sat for a conversion-to-regular-employment examination, this circumstance alone was insufficient to find that an expectation of conversion to regular employment had been formed, and there was no circumstance in the course of the conversion examination that could be viewed as conferring an expectation of conversion to regular employment—
the Commission comprehensively considered these factors and concluded that the employee had no expectation of conversion to regular employment.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader’s Missing Funds)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 Case on Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader’s Missing Funds),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of conversion to regular employment (verbal promise by HR officer) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (Verbal Promise by HR Officer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
