Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Involving “Probationary Dismissal (3-Month Work Evaluation Period)” (Unfair Dismissal 48)
- Date2026/01/07 04:03
- Read 215
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision involving “probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period)”
- Decision date:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal573 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer hired the employee under an employment contract that included a three-month work evaluation period. At the end of this probationary period, the employer refused to confirm the employee as a regular employee, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the meaning of the probationary clauses set out in the employment contract and the rules of employment, and on whether written notice of dismissal had been provided in the course of refusing regular employment.
The key issues in this case were: “Whether an employee can be regarded as a probationary employee where the employment contract specifies a three-month work evaluation period, and whether the refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period, without providing specific reasons in writing, constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
The decision panel held that, in light of the fact that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period, that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, and considering the general purpose of probationary systems, the relationship between the employer and the employee should be regarded as a probationary employment contract. It further held that refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer was required to notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal, which the employer failed to do.
Accordingly, the Commission found that this dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal, on the grounds that, even though it was a refusal to confirm regular employment for a probationary employee, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether an employee can be regarded as a probationary employee where the employment contract states a “3-month work evaluation period” and the rules of employment also contain provisions on probation. Second, whether the refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes an unfair dismissal where the employer fails to provide written notice of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The Labor Relations Commission held, first, that the employment relationship should be viewed as a probationary employment contract, taking into account that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period, that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, and that the probationary system is, in essence, an employment contract with a reserved right of termination, under which the employer evaluates the employee’s job suitability for a certain period before deciding whether to confirm regular employment.
Second, the Commission premised its reasoning on the view that refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes a dismissal, in which the employer exercises the reserved right of termination after the employment contract has already been formed. Therefore, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer must provide written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal in a specific and substantive manner.
Third, because the employer failed to fulfill this obligation of written notice, the Commission concluded that, even if the employee is a probationary employee, the refusal to confirm regular employment lacked justification and constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether the terminology used is “probation,” “work evaluation period,” or “trial period,” if the structure is such that regular employment is decided after an evaluation over a certain period, the employment contract is already considered to have been formed, and refusal to confirm regular employment can be challenged as a dismissal. In particular, if the employer did not provide a written dismissal notice specifying concrete reasons at the end of the probationary period, there is a strong basis to contest the action by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Employees should therefore carefully retain the contents, form, and timing of any notice received.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when operating probationary or training systems, it is advisable to clearly stipulate the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment in the rules of employment and employment contracts, in order to reduce the risk of disputes. Furthermore, when dismissing an employee during the probationary period or refusing to confirm regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period, even though a somewhat relaxed standard may apply compared to ordinary dismissals, the employer must still provide written notice of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal and its timing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, companies should thoroughly prepare evaluation materials, organize the grounds for dismissal, and implement proper written notice procedures.
This decision clearly confirms that the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal is not waived merely because the employee is a probationary employee. Both employees and employers should therefore carefully review the requirements of Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act when operating probationary or training systems. In Labor Relations Commission practice as well, it is important to proceed on the premise that refusal to confirm regular employment for a probationary employee may be found to constitute an unfair dismissal, and to develop a strategy for organizing the facts and securing evidence together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether the grounds for refusal to confirm regular employment were justified
Where regular employment is refused under a probationary employment contract, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for such refusal. Failure to do so is improper and constitutes unfair treatment.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether the grounds for refusal to confirm regular employment were justified
Where regular employment is refused under a probationary employment contract, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for such refusal. Failure to do so is improper. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Merchandise)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Lapse of Application Period (10-Day Reconsideration Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Existence of Disciplinary Grounds (Refusal of Employment Contract under Full-Commission System)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (3-Month Work Evaluation Period).”
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision involving “probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period)”
- Decision date:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal573 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer hired the employee under an employment contract that included a three-month work evaluation period. At the end of this probationary period, the employer refused to confirm the employee as a regular employee, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the meaning of the probationary clauses set out in the employment contract and the rules of employment, and on whether written notice of dismissal had been provided in the course of refusing regular employment.
The key issues in this case were: “Whether an employee can be regarded as a probationary employee where the employment contract specifies a three-month work evaluation period, and whether the refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period, without providing specific reasons in writing, constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
The decision panel held that, in light of the fact that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period, that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, and considering the general purpose of probationary systems, the relationship between the employer and the employee should be regarded as a probationary employment contract. It further held that refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer was required to notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal, which the employer failed to do.
Accordingly, the Commission found that this dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal, on the grounds that, even though it was a refusal to confirm regular employment for a probationary employee, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether an employee can be regarded as a probationary employee where the employment contract states a “3-month work evaluation period” and the rules of employment also contain provisions on probation. Second, whether the refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes an unfair dismissal where the employer fails to provide written notice of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The Labor Relations Commission held, first, that the employment relationship should be viewed as a probationary employment contract, taking into account that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period, that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, and that the probationary system is, in essence, an employment contract with a reserved right of termination, under which the employer evaluates the employee’s job suitability for a certain period before deciding whether to confirm regular employment.
Second, the Commission premised its reasoning on the view that refusal to confirm regular employment at the end of the probationary period constitutes a dismissal, in which the employer exercises the reserved right of termination after the employment contract has already been formed. Therefore, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer must provide written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal in a specific and substantive manner.
Third, because the employer failed to fulfill this obligation of written notice, the Commission concluded that, even if the employee is a probationary employee, the refusal to confirm regular employment lacked justification and constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether the terminology used is “probation,” “work evaluation period,” or “trial period,” if the structure is such that regular employment is decided after an evaluation over a certain period, the employment contract is already considered to have been formed, and refusal to confirm regular employment can be challenged as a dismissal. In particular, if the employer did not provide a written dismissal notice specifying concrete reasons at the end of the probationary period, there is a strong basis to contest the action by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Employees should therefore carefully retain the contents, form, and timing of any notice received.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when operating probationary or training systems, it is advisable to clearly stipulate the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment in the rules of employment and employment contracts, in order to reduce the risk of disputes. Furthermore, when dismissing an employee during the probationary period or refusing to confirm regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period, even though a somewhat relaxed standard may apply compared to ordinary dismissals, the employer must still provide written notice of specific and substantive grounds for dismissal and its timing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, companies should thoroughly prepare evaluation materials, organize the grounds for dismissal, and implement proper written notice procedures.
This decision clearly confirms that the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal is not waived merely because the employee is a probationary employee. Both employees and employers should therefore carefully review the requirements of Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act when operating probationary or training systems. In Labor Relations Commission practice as well, it is important to proceed on the premise that refusal to confirm regular employment for a probationary employee may be found to constitute an unfair dismissal, and to develop a strategy for organizing the facts and securing evidence together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether the grounds for refusal to confirm regular employment were justified
Where regular employment is refused under a probationary employment contract, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for such refusal. Failure to do so is improper and constitutes unfair treatment.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Considering that the employment contract expressly stipulated a three-month work evaluation period and that the rules of employment also contained provisions on a probationary period, it was determined that the employee and employer had concluded a probationary employment contract.
B. Whether the grounds for refusal to confirm regular employment were justified
Where regular employment is refused under a probationary employment contract, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of specific and substantive grounds for such refusal. Failure to do so is improper. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Merchandise)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Lapse of Application Period (10-Day Reconsideration Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Existence of Disciplinary Grounds (Refusal of Employment Contract under Full-Commission System)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (3-month work evaluation period) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (3-Month Work Evaluation Period).”
