Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Refusal of Final Hiring (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points)” (Unfair Dismissal 485)
- Date2026/05/27 04:04
- Read 63
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points).”
Adjudicating body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae104 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period, and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee on probation was refused final hiring on the ground that the employee’s work evaluation score fell short of the prescribed threshold. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the employment contract, the work rules, and the procedures and results of the probationary evaluation to determine whether the employer’s refusal of final hiring was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is “whether refusal of final hiring based on the results of a work evaluation conducted during the probationary period constitutes disciplinary dismissal, and whether such refusal of final hiring is supported by objectively reasonable and socially acceptable just cause and procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and expressly state that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract; an actual evaluation was conducted in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form, and the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring; it is difficult to view the evaluation as having been conducted in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner specifically against the employee; and a written “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” stating the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal should not be regarded as an ordinary disciplinary dismissal, but rather as termination of the employment relationship due to refusal of final hiring in the context of a trial/probationary employment relationship, and that, since there were no material defects in the content or procedure of the evaluation, it did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should, at the time of joining the company, carefully check the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and minimum score required for final hiring as set out in the employment contract and work rules. Even during the probationary period, an employment contract has already been formed, and therefore the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act apply. However, in light of the nature of trial/probationary employment, the employer’s discretion in evaluating job suitability is recognized more broadly than in the case of ordinary dismissal.
In addition, if there is no evidence that the evaluation lacked objectivity or rationality, or that it was conducted in a markedly disadvantageous manner compared to other probationary employees, it will be difficult to have unfair dismissal recognized by the Labor Relations Commission solely on the ground that the score was low.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary/trial employment system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules and employment contract the probationary period, evaluation items, minimum score required for final hiring, and the effect of termination of the employment contract upon refusal of final hiring. Employers should use a probationary evaluation form to actually observe work attitude, capability, adaptability, etc. over a certain period, and prepare documentation of the evaluation grounds and scores so that objectivity and fairness can be substantiated.
Furthermore, refusal of final hiring constitutes dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore the employer must strictly comply with the written notice procedure, specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract. Where such arrangements are in place, the exercise of the reserved right to terminate is more likely to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
This decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission shows that refusal of final hiring during the probationary period is not automatically deemed unfair dismissal, and that where the three pillars of “prior clarification of evaluation criteria – objectivity in the actual evaluation – compliance with the written notice procedure” are satisfied, the employer’s action may be found justified. To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, both employees and employers should correctly understand the legal principles governing probationary/trial employment systems and review their system design with advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
B. Whether the refusal of final hiring was justified (grounds and procedure)
The employer in this case evaluated the employee in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form set out in the company’s work rules and, as the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring, notified the employee of termination of the employment contract. The evaluation does not appear to have been particularly unreasonable or unfair to the employee, and a “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered, so the Commission found that there was no procedural defect.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
B. Whether the refusal of final hiring was justified (grounds and procedure)
The employer in this case evaluated the employee in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form set out in the company’s work rules and, as the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring, notified the employee of termination of the employment contract. The evaluation does not appear to have been particularly unreasonable or unfair to the employee, and a “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered, so the Commission found that there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Conflict Over Request for Face‑to‑Face Meeting by Subcontractor)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Refusal of Final Hiring (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points).”
Adjudicating body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae104 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period, and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee on probation was refused final hiring on the ground that the employee’s work evaluation score fell short of the prescribed threshold. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the employment contract, the work rules, and the procedures and results of the probationary evaluation to determine whether the employer’s refusal of final hiring was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is “whether refusal of final hiring based on the results of a work evaluation conducted during the probationary period constitutes disciplinary dismissal, and whether such refusal of final hiring is supported by objectively reasonable and socially acceptable just cause and procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and expressly state that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract; an actual evaluation was conducted in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form, and the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring; it is difficult to view the evaluation as having been conducted in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner specifically against the employee; and a written “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” stating the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal should not be regarded as an ordinary disciplinary dismissal, but rather as termination of the employment relationship due to refusal of final hiring in the context of a trial/probationary employment relationship, and that, since there were no material defects in the content or procedure of the evaluation, it did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should, at the time of joining the company, carefully check the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and minimum score required for final hiring as set out in the employment contract and work rules. Even during the probationary period, an employment contract has already been formed, and therefore the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act apply. However, in light of the nature of trial/probationary employment, the employer’s discretion in evaluating job suitability is recognized more broadly than in the case of ordinary dismissal.
In addition, if there is no evidence that the evaluation lacked objectivity or rationality, or that it was conducted in a markedly disadvantageous manner compared to other probationary employees, it will be difficult to have unfair dismissal recognized by the Labor Relations Commission solely on the ground that the score was low.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a probationary/trial employment system, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules and employment contract the probationary period, evaluation items, minimum score required for final hiring, and the effect of termination of the employment contract upon refusal of final hiring. Employers should use a probationary evaluation form to actually observe work attitude, capability, adaptability, etc. over a certain period, and prepare documentation of the evaluation grounds and scores so that objectivity and fairness can be substantiated.
Furthermore, refusal of final hiring constitutes dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore the employer must strictly comply with the written notice procedure, specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract. Where such arrangements are in place, the exercise of the reserved right to terminate is more likely to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
This decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission shows that refusal of final hiring during the probationary period is not automatically deemed unfair dismissal, and that where the three pillars of “prior clarification of evaluation criteria – objectivity in the actual evaluation – compliance with the written notice procedure” are satisfied, the employer’s action may be found justified. To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, both employees and employers should correctly understand the legal principles governing probationary/trial employment systems and review their system design with advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
B. Whether the refusal of final hiring was justified (grounds and procedure)
The employer in this case evaluated the employee in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form set out in the company’s work rules and, as the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring, notified the employee of termination of the employment contract. The evaluation does not appear to have been particularly unreasonable or unfair to the employee, and a “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered, so the Commission found that there was no procedural defect.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether the dismissal constitutes disciplinary action
Given that Article 2(5) of the employment contract and the work rules provide for a three‑month probationary period and stipulate that any person who scores below 60 points in the evaluation conducted during the probationary period shall be subject to termination of the employment contract, it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated due to refusal of final hiring.
B. Whether the refusal of final hiring was justified (grounds and procedure)
The employer in this case evaluated the employee in accordance with the probationary employee work evaluation form set out in the company’s work rules and, as the employee failed to meet the criteria for final hiring, notified the employee of termination of the employment contract. The evaluation does not appear to have been particularly unreasonable or unfair to the employee, and a “Notice of End of Probation (Dismissal)” specifying the reason and date of termination of the employment contract was delivered, so the Commission found that there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Conflict Over Request for Face‑to‑Face Meeting by Subcontractor)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to refusal of final hiring (probationary evaluation below 60 points) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Refusal of Final Hiring (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
