Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Report to Work After Workplace Bullying) (Unfair Dismissal 377)
- Date2026/04/17 04:04
- Read 183
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae10097 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees: The employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee. Accordingly, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified: (i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause; (ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores fell below 80 points, which was the company’s threshold for refusing regular employment; and (iii) there was no evidence that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or arbitrary. In light of these factors, the refusal to confirm regular employment was found to be justified.
(ellipsis in original)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the central issue was whether the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment of workers hired on a probationary/training basis was lawful. After a workplace bullying issue arose, the employees refused to report to work. The employer then refused to confirm their regular employment, citing the results of the probationary evaluation. The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal, but their application was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In an employment contract premised on a three‑month training/probationary period, where a probationary employee refused to report to work following a workplace bullying issue, does the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment on the basis of the probationary evaluation score constitute a ‘just cause’ dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (i.e., not an unfair dismissal)?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contracts and work rules explicitly provided for a three‑month probationary period and for termination or rescission of the employment contract based on the evaluation results during that period, and that new employees were subject to an assessment of their job suitability.
On this basis, the panel held that the employees were probationary employees.
With respect to the workplace bullying alleged by the employees, the panel found that, although the employer had fulfilled its basic duty of protection, the employees refused to report to work without just cause; that their probationary evaluation scores fell below the company’s threshold of 80 points for confirming regular employment; and that there was no evidence suggesting that the evaluation criteria themselves were unreasonable or arbitrary.
Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case, as a refusal to confirm regular employment of probationary employees, was justified and not unfair.
[Supplement to the Commission’s Reasoning – Legal Structure]
Even if the terms “probation” and “training” are used interchangeably in form, they are understood in substance as “employment contracts with a reserved right of termination,” in that the employer reserves the decision on regular employment while assessing the employee’s qualities, abilities, and suitability over a certain period. Because a dismissal during the probationary period or a refusal to confirm regular employment upon expiry of that period constitutes a dismissal, “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act is required. However, under Supreme Court and Labor Relations Commission precedent, the scope for recognizing just cause is broader than in the case of ordinary disciplinary dismissal.
Furthermore, where the employer refuses to confirm regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period, this is, in principle, treated as an exercise of the reserved right of termination rather than as a disciplinary dismissal. Accordingly, case law and decisions do not automatically deem such refusals unlawful solely because no separate disciplinary procedure (such as convening a disciplinary committee) was followed. In this case as well, the Commission considered the probationary evaluation system based on the work rules and employment contracts, the specific evaluation scores, and the employer’s response measures to the workplace bullying, and found that the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if you join a company under the label of “training” or “probation,” if the employment contract and work rules specify the existence of a probationary period, evaluation items, criteria for refusing regular employment, and the possibility of termination, you may in substance be treated as a probationary employee. In such cases, the standard for determining the lawfulness of dismissal may be somewhat relaxed.
Even where workplace bullying is at issue, if the employer has fulfilled its basic duty of protection—such as receiving the complaint, conducting an investigation, and implementing separation measures—then a subsequent blanket refusal to report to work, unless it constitutes a lawful industrial action or an emergency necessity, may be used as a ground for evaluation and dismissal.
Accordingly, when workplace bullying occurs, even if you consider the company’s measures insufficient, it is advisable not to respond by unexcused absence or refusal to report to work. Instead, you should keep records, request additional measures, and at the same time formulate a response strategy that includes filing a petition with the Labor Relations Commission or the Ministry of Employment and Labor and consulting experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important at the time of new hiring to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and work rules the existence of a probationary/training period, the evaluation criteria, the standards for refusing regular employment, and the possibility of termination, and to provide sufficient explanation and notice of these matters at the onboarding stage. In addition, the items in the probationary evaluation should be structured to ensure job relevance and objectivity, and the evaluation results and the process of deciding on regular employment should be documented to facilitate recognition of lawfulness before the Labor Relations Commission.
When a workplace bullying issue arises, the employer should keep records showing that it has faithfully fulfilled the basic duties of protection required by law, such as receiving the complaint, verifying the facts, separating the alleged perpetrator and victim, and implementing measures to prevent recurrence. If, notwithstanding these efforts, a probationary employee refuses to report to work for an extended period without just cause, the employer should reflect that fact in the probationary evaluation and follow procedures that include specifically notifying the employee of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment. Observing these procedures is essential to preventing disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees
Because the employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justified
(i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause;
(ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores were below 80 points, which was the threshold for refusing regular employment; and
(iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or improper.
In light of these factors, the reasons for refusing regular employment were found to be justified.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful
Because the employees were specifically notified of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment, there was no defect in the procedure for refusing regular employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees
Because the employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justified
(i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause;
(ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores were below 80 points, which was the threshold for refusing regular employment; and
(iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or improper.
In light of these factors, the reasons for refusing regular employment were found to be justified.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful
Because the employees were specifically notified of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment, there was no defect in the procedure for refusing regular employment. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, workplace bullying, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑term Employment in Early Stage of Business),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying) can be found under “List of Decisions on Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Report to Work After Workplace Bullying).”
※ 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 (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae10097 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees: The employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee. Accordingly, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified: (i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause; (ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores fell below 80 points, which was the company’s threshold for refusing regular employment; and (iii) there was no evidence that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or arbitrary. In light of these factors, the refusal to confirm regular employment was found to be justified.
(ellipsis in original)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the central issue was whether the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment of workers hired on a probationary/training basis was lawful. After a workplace bullying issue arose, the employees refused to report to work. The employer then refused to confirm their regular employment, citing the results of the probationary evaluation. The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal, but their application was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In an employment contract premised on a three‑month training/probationary period, where a probationary employee refused to report to work following a workplace bullying issue, does the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment on the basis of the probationary evaluation score constitute a ‘just cause’ dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (i.e., not an unfair dismissal)?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contracts and work rules explicitly provided for a three‑month probationary period and for termination or rescission of the employment contract based on the evaluation results during that period, and that new employees were subject to an assessment of their job suitability.
On this basis, the panel held that the employees were probationary employees.
With respect to the workplace bullying alleged by the employees, the panel found that, although the employer had fulfilled its basic duty of protection, the employees refused to report to work without just cause; that their probationary evaluation scores fell below the company’s threshold of 80 points for confirming regular employment; and that there was no evidence suggesting that the evaluation criteria themselves were unreasonable or arbitrary.
Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case, as a refusal to confirm regular employment of probationary employees, was justified and not unfair.
[Supplement to the Commission’s Reasoning – Legal Structure]
Even if the terms “probation” and “training” are used interchangeably in form, they are understood in substance as “employment contracts with a reserved right of termination,” in that the employer reserves the decision on regular employment while assessing the employee’s qualities, abilities, and suitability over a certain period. Because a dismissal during the probationary period or a refusal to confirm regular employment upon expiry of that period constitutes a dismissal, “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act is required. However, under Supreme Court and Labor Relations Commission precedent, the scope for recognizing just cause is broader than in the case of ordinary disciplinary dismissal.
Furthermore, where the employer refuses to confirm regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period, this is, in principle, treated as an exercise of the reserved right of termination rather than as a disciplinary dismissal. Accordingly, case law and decisions do not automatically deem such refusals unlawful solely because no separate disciplinary procedure (such as convening a disciplinary committee) was followed. In this case as well, the Commission considered the probationary evaluation system based on the work rules and employment contracts, the specific evaluation scores, and the employer’s response measures to the workplace bullying, and found that the employer’s refusal to confirm regular employment was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if you join a company under the label of “training” or “probation,” if the employment contract and work rules specify the existence of a probationary period, evaluation items, criteria for refusing regular employment, and the possibility of termination, you may in substance be treated as a probationary employee. In such cases, the standard for determining the lawfulness of dismissal may be somewhat relaxed.
Even where workplace bullying is at issue, if the employer has fulfilled its basic duty of protection—such as receiving the complaint, conducting an investigation, and implementing separation measures—then a subsequent blanket refusal to report to work, unless it constitutes a lawful industrial action or an emergency necessity, may be used as a ground for evaluation and dismissal.
Accordingly, when workplace bullying occurs, even if you consider the company’s measures insufficient, it is advisable not to respond by unexcused absence or refusal to report to work. Instead, you should keep records, request additional measures, and at the same time formulate a response strategy that includes filing a petition with the Labor Relations Commission or the Ministry of Employment and Labor and consulting experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important at the time of new hiring to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and work rules the existence of a probationary/training period, the evaluation criteria, the standards for refusing regular employment, and the possibility of termination, and to provide sufficient explanation and notice of these matters at the onboarding stage. In addition, the items in the probationary evaluation should be structured to ensure job relevance and objectivity, and the evaluation results and the process of deciding on regular employment should be documented to facilitate recognition of lawfulness before the Labor Relations Commission.
When a workplace bullying issue arises, the employer should keep records showing that it has faithfully fulfilled the basic duties of protection required by law, such as receiving the complaint, verifying the facts, separating the alleged perpetrator and victim, and implementing measures to prevent recurrence. If, notwithstanding these efforts, a probationary employee refuses to report to work for an extended period without just cause, the employer should reflect that fact in the probationary evaluation and follow procedures that include specifically notifying the employee of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment. Observing these procedures is essential to preventing disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees
Because the employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justified
(i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause;
(ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores were below 80 points, which was the threshold for refusing regular employment; and
(iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or improper.
In light of these factors, the reasons for refusing regular employment were found to be justified.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful
Because the employees were specifically notified of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment, there was no defect in the procedure for refusing regular employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employees were probationary employees
Because the employment contracts and work rules provided for a three‑month probationary period and stated that, depending on the evaluation results during the probation, the employer could terminate or rescind the employment contract if the employee was found unqualified or deemed not to possess the qualities required of a regular employee, the employees were held to be probationary employees.
B. Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justified
(i) Although the employer fulfilled its basic duty of protection in relation to the workplace bullying incident, the employees refused to report to work without just cause;
(ii) the employees’ probationary evaluation scores were below 80 points, which was the threshold for refusing regular employment; and
(iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the evaluation criteria were unreasonable or improper.
In light of these factors, the reasons for refusing regular employment were found to be justified.
C. Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful
Because the employees were specifically notified of the reasons for and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment, there was no defect in the procedure for refusing regular employment. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, workplace bullying, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑term Employment in Early Stage of Business),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (refusal to report to work after workplace bullying) can be found under “List of Decisions on Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Report to Work After Workplace Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
