[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “dismissal during probation (experienced AMD – ordering error).” Decision date: 2026-06-30 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae2320 Key issues in summary: (a) Whether the worker was a probationary (trial) employee: as the employment contract provided that the decision on regular employment would be made after a three‑month probationary period, the worker was deemed a probationary employee; (b) Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justifiable: (i) the worker was hired as an experienced employee at a salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired staff, (ii) the employer took into account the worker’s prior AMD experience in online product sales despite a career break, (iii) in the course of the worker’s performance of ordering duties… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker hired as an experienced employee completed a three‑month probationary (trial) period, after which the employer refused to grant regular employment. The worker then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the worker qualified as a probationary (trial) employee, whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justifiable, and whether there were any procedural defects. This case provides important guidance on how to assess performance during trial/probationary periods and how to determine the legitimacy of a refusal of regular employment in unfair dismissal disputes. It is a type of case frequently referred to in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the three‑month probationary period to an experienced AMD worker constitutes a dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act, and whether there were any procedural defects in that process. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings The panel held that the employer had agreed in the employment contract to decide on regular employment after a three‑month probationary period, which constitutes the setting of a trial period and the exercise of a reserved right of termination. The panel further noted that the worker, as an experienced hire, received a salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired staff, yet repeatedly made mistakes in ordering and product‑code mapping tasks, causing significant disruption to operations; that the worker also showed shortcomings in customer service responses, leading to a low assessment of suitability for the AMD role; and that it was difficult to view the probationary evaluation results as lacking objectivity, and there was no clear improvement even after the evaluation. In light of the above, the Commission found that the refusal of regular employment, based on a negative assessment of the worker’s vocational ability and job suitability, was supported by objective and reasonable grounds and, considering the purpose of the trial employment system, was socially acceptable. In addition, the employer, having recognized the problems, first recommended that the worker resign, and when the worker refused, conducted a probationary evaluation in accordance with the prescribed procedures. After the evaluation, the employer provided a written notice stating the reasons for refusing regular employment, thereby fulfilling the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal constituted a refusal of regular employment upon expiration of the trial period, that there were no procedural defects, and that the mere fact that the employer did not follow the same disciplinary procedures as for a disciplinary dismissal did not render the dismissal unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, even if the term “probation” is used, where the contract provides that the decision on regular employment will be made after a certain period, the employment will in substance be treated as trial employment, and any dispute over refusal of regular employment will proceed as a dismissal dispute. Rather than complacently assuming that mistakes made during the trial period are acceptable because it is a “training phase,” workers should recognize that this is an evaluation period that determines whether they will be formally employed, and should continuously document their efforts to improve accuracy and attitude at work. If you receive a notice refusing regular employment, it is difficult to have unfair dismissal recognized based solely on dissatisfaction with the evaluation. It is important, together with a labor law professional, to carefully identify and organize specific unlawful aspects in the procedures and substance, such as arbitrariness or discriminatory elements in the evaluation criteria, defects in written notice, and inconsistencies in how the trial period was operated. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when operating a trial/probationary system, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the “trial period, evaluation criteria, and method of deciding on regular employment,” and to sufficiently explain these to the worker at the time of hiring. Even though refusal of regular employment during a trial period is more broadly permitted than ordinary dismissal, the just‑cause requirement under Article 23 and the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act still apply. Therefore, specific evaluation contents and reasons should be documented. In particular, in cases involving experienced hires with high salaries, as in this case, employers should bear in mind that if they accumulate objective data, evaluation sheets, and feedback records regarding repeated mistakes relative to expectations, lack of improvement efforts, and inadequate customer responses indicating insufficient job suitability, the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment will increase. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the worker, as a probationary employee, was refused regular employment, and the Commission found that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal and no procedural defects, and therefore held the refusal to be lawful. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings (a) Whether the worker was a probationary (trial) employee As the employment contract provided that the decision on regular employment would be made after a three‑month probationary period, the worker was deemed a probationary (trial) employee. (b) Whether the reasons for refusing regular employment were justifiable ① The worker was hired as an experienced employee at a salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired staff; ② The employer took into account, in hiring, the worker’s AMD experience in online product sales, despite a career break; ③ In the course of the worker’s performance of ordering duties, the worker made mistakes in mapping order details and product codes, causing significant disruption to the employer’s operations, and appeared to have performed somewhat inadequately in customer service response duties; ④ With respect to ordering duties, the number of cases in which the worker performed the work incorrectly was overwhelmingly high, and it appears that the worker did not correct these errors; ⑤ It is difficult to view the employer’s probationary evaluation as lacking objectivity. In light of all these factors, the Commission found that there was just cause for refusing regular employment. (c) Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful The employer, having determined that there were many problems with the worker’s job performance, recommended resignation on 2025-12-02, and when the worker did not accept, conducted a probationary evaluation on 2025-12-24 in accordance with procedure. It is not possible to conclude that the results of the probationary evaluation lacked legitimacy. The employer then notified the worker in writing on 2025-12-29 of the reasons for refusing regular employment. Considering all of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any defect in the procedure for refusing regular employment. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Relief Interest · Refusal of Re‑employment (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dismissal during probation (experienced AMD – ordering error), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Changing Password and Deleting Data on Work PC)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to dismissal during probation (experienced AMD – ordering error) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal during Probation (Experienced AMD – Ordering Error).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article