Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning the Exercise of the Right to Terminate a Probationary Contract (Allegation of Workplace Bullying) (Unfair Dismissal 465)
- Date2026/05/20 04:08
- Read 100
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9516 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case, decided by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, illustrates how the Commission assessed the lawfulness of an employer’s refusal to confirm the employment of a worker hired on a probationary/training basis. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the probationary evaluation was conducted unfairly as an extension of workplace bullying. The employer countered that it had merely exercised its ordinary right to terminate a probationary contract in accordance with its HR regulations and the evaluation results.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment at the end of the three‑month probationary period specified in the employment contract, based on the evaluation results, constitutes an unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, in circumstances where the worker alleged workplace bullying and challenged the fairness of the evaluation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that, in light of the facts that the employment contract and HR regulations provided for continuation or termination of employment depending on the evaluation during the probationary period; that a probationary evaluation was in fact conducted over three months; that there was no particular dispute between the parties as to whether the contract was a probationary contract; and that a probationary system is, by nature, an employment contract with a reserved right of termination for the purpose of assessing job suitability prior to formal hiring,
and further, considering that the materials submitted by the worker were insufficient to establish the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or any resulting distortion of the evaluation; that it was difficult to conclude that only the applicant’s evaluation was erroneous among the evaluations of multiple probationary employees conducted by a committee composed of several evaluators; that the materials submitted by the employer showed certain problems in the worker’s work methods, work content, and cooperation with colleagues; and that the employer had given written notice of the failure to meet the passing score and of the end of the probationary period and non‑pass result,
the panel found that the termination in this case was a lawful refusal to confirm employment upon expiry of the probationary period and did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to successfully challenge an unfair dismissal during a probationary/training period, it is crucial to prove, with concrete facts and evidence, why the evaluation was unfair. Where the fairness of the evaluation is challenged on the basis of workplace bullying, it is necessary to systematically secure materials that support the causal link between (i) the specific content, timing, and perpetrators of the bullying and (ii) the evaluation results.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary/training system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the employment contract, rules of employment, and HR regulations the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal to confirm employment, and to minimize disputes over fairness by using multiple evaluators and objective evaluation forms. In addition, when terminating a probationary contract (refusing to confirm employment), the employer should provide written notice of the evaluation content, scores, and the fact of failing to meet the criteria, and, where there is a potential dispute such as workplace bullying, should investigate and record the relevant facts in advance so that it can substantiate the lawfulness of its actions before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission indicates that refusal to confirm the employment of a probationary worker also constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore cannot be handled arbitrarily merely because it occurs “before formal hiring.” It suggests that employers should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, review in advance the design of their probationary systems and their dispute‑response strategies.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the worker was a probationary employee
Under the probationary contract clause in the employment contract—“After a three‑month probationary period following hiring, the continuation or termination of the employment contract shall be determined based on the evaluation results and pre‑employment test results”—and the relevant HR regulations, the worker underwent evaluation during a three‑month training period. As there was no separate dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a probationary employment contract, the employment contract was held to be a probationary contract.
(b) Lawfulness of the refusal to confirm employment (grounds and procedure)
① From the evidentiary materials submitted by the worker, it was not possible to clearly ascertain the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or the basis therefor, such that the company’s superiors could be deemed perpetrators of workplace bullying against the worker and to have thereby lost objectivity and fairness in the probationary evaluation and conducted an unfair evaluation.
② There was insufficient basis to conclude that only the evaluation content and results for the worker were erroneous among the probationary evaluations of several probationary employees conducted by an evaluation committee composed of multiple evaluators.
③ A review of the evidentiary materials submitted by the employer showed that there were certain problems in the worker’s work methods and content and in cooperation among employees.
④ The employer gave written notice that the worker had failed to achieve the passing score in the evaluation and that the probationary period was ending, and informed the worker of the fact that the worker had failed due to the insufficient evaluation score.
In light of all of the above, the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment was held to be lawful.
3. Key Points of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the worker was a probationary employee
Under the probationary contract clause in the employment contract—“After a three‑month probationary period following hiring, the continuation or termination of the employment contract shall be determined based on the evaluation results and pre‑employment test results”—and the relevant HR regulations, the worker underwent evaluation during a three‑month training period. As there was no separate dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a probationary employment contract, the employment contract was held to be a probationary contract.
(b) Lawfulness of the refusal to confirm employment (grounds and procedure)
① From the evidentiary materials submitted by the worker, it was not possible to clearly ascertain the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or the basis therefor, such that the company’s superiors could be deemed perpetrators of workplace bullying against the worker and to have thereby lost objectivity and fairness in the probationary evaluation and conducted an unfair evaluation.
② There was insufficient basis to conclude that only the evaluation content and results for the worker were erroneous among the probationary evaluations of several probationary employees conducted by an evaluation committee composed of multiple evaluators.
③ A review of the evidentiary materials submitted by the employer showed that there were certain problems in the worker’s work methods and content and in cooperation among employees.
④ The employer gave written notice that the worker had failed to achieve the passing score in the evaluation and that the probationary period was ending, and informed the worker of the fact that the worker had failed due to the insufficient evaluation score.
In light of all of the above, the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment was held to be lawful.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying), dismissal during probation, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non‑Attendance at Hearing),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate a Probationary Contract (Allegation of 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 the “right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9516 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case, decided by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, illustrates how the Commission assessed the lawfulness of an employer’s refusal to confirm the employment of a worker hired on a probationary/training basis. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the probationary evaluation was conducted unfairly as an extension of workplace bullying. The employer countered that it had merely exercised its ordinary right to terminate a probationary contract in accordance with its HR regulations and the evaluation results.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment at the end of the three‑month probationary period specified in the employment contract, based on the evaluation results, constitutes an unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, in circumstances where the worker alleged workplace bullying and challenged the fairness of the evaluation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that, in light of the facts that the employment contract and HR regulations provided for continuation or termination of employment depending on the evaluation during the probationary period; that a probationary evaluation was in fact conducted over three months; that there was no particular dispute between the parties as to whether the contract was a probationary contract; and that a probationary system is, by nature, an employment contract with a reserved right of termination for the purpose of assessing job suitability prior to formal hiring,
and further, considering that the materials submitted by the worker were insufficient to establish the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or any resulting distortion of the evaluation; that it was difficult to conclude that only the applicant’s evaluation was erroneous among the evaluations of multiple probationary employees conducted by a committee composed of several evaluators; that the materials submitted by the employer showed certain problems in the worker’s work methods, work content, and cooperation with colleagues; and that the employer had given written notice of the failure to meet the passing score and of the end of the probationary period and non‑pass result,
the panel found that the termination in this case was a lawful refusal to confirm employment upon expiry of the probationary period and did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to successfully challenge an unfair dismissal during a probationary/training period, it is crucial to prove, with concrete facts and evidence, why the evaluation was unfair. Where the fairness of the evaluation is challenged on the basis of workplace bullying, it is necessary to systematically secure materials that support the causal link between (i) the specific content, timing, and perpetrators of the bullying and (ii) the evaluation results.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary/training system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the employment contract, rules of employment, and HR regulations the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal to confirm employment, and to minimize disputes over fairness by using multiple evaluators and objective evaluation forms. In addition, when terminating a probationary contract (refusing to confirm employment), the employer should provide written notice of the evaluation content, scores, and the fact of failing to meet the criteria, and, where there is a potential dispute such as workplace bullying, should investigate and record the relevant facts in advance so that it can substantiate the lawfulness of its actions before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission indicates that refusal to confirm the employment of a probationary worker also constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore cannot be handled arbitrarily merely because it occurs “before formal hiring.” It suggests that employers should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, review in advance the design of their probationary systems and their dispute‑response strategies.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the worker was a probationary employee
Under the probationary contract clause in the employment contract—“After a three‑month probationary period following hiring, the continuation or termination of the employment contract shall be determined based on the evaluation results and pre‑employment test results”—and the relevant HR regulations, the worker underwent evaluation during a three‑month training period. As there was no separate dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a probationary employment contract, the employment contract was held to be a probationary contract.
(b) Lawfulness of the refusal to confirm employment (grounds and procedure)
① From the evidentiary materials submitted by the worker, it was not possible to clearly ascertain the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or the basis therefor, such that the company’s superiors could be deemed perpetrators of workplace bullying against the worker and to have thereby lost objectivity and fairness in the probationary evaluation and conducted an unfair evaluation.
② There was insufficient basis to conclude that only the evaluation content and results for the worker were erroneous among the probationary evaluations of several probationary employees conducted by an evaluation committee composed of multiple evaluators.
③ A review of the evidentiary materials submitted by the employer showed that there were certain problems in the worker’s work methods and content and in cooperation among employees.
④ The employer gave written notice that the worker had failed to achieve the passing score in the evaluation and that the probationary period was ending, and informed the worker of the fact that the worker had failed due to the insufficient evaluation score.
In light of all of the above, the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment was held to be lawful.
3. Key Points of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the worker was a probationary employee
Under the probationary contract clause in the employment contract—“After a three‑month probationary period following hiring, the continuation or termination of the employment contract shall be determined based on the evaluation results and pre‑employment test results”—and the relevant HR regulations, the worker underwent evaluation during a three‑month training period. As there was no separate dispute between the parties regarding the existence of a probationary employment contract, the employment contract was held to be a probationary contract.
(b) Lawfulness of the refusal to confirm employment (grounds and procedure)
① From the evidentiary materials submitted by the worker, it was not possible to clearly ascertain the specific content of the alleged workplace bullying or the basis therefor, such that the company’s superiors could be deemed perpetrators of workplace bullying against the worker and to have thereby lost objectivity and fairness in the probationary evaluation and conducted an unfair evaluation.
② There was insufficient basis to conclude that only the evaluation content and results for the worker were erroneous among the probationary evaluations of several probationary employees conducted by an evaluation committee composed of multiple evaluators.
③ A review of the evidentiary materials submitted by the employer showed that there were certain problems in the worker’s work methods and content and in cooperation among employees.
④ The employer gave written notice that the worker had failed to achieve the passing score in the evaluation and that the probationary period was ending, and informed the worker of the fact that the worker had failed due to the insufficient evaluation score.
In light of all of the above, the employer’s refusal to confirm the worker’s employment was held to be lawful.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying), dismissal during probation, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non‑Attendance at Hearing),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the right to terminate a probationary contract (allegation of workplace bullying) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate a Probationary Contract (Allegation of Workplace Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
