[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (experienced AMD – ordering error).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해2320 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee hired as an experienced worker joined the company on the premise of a three‑month probationary period. When the employee was denied regular employment at the end of the probationary period, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employee qualified as a probationary employee (si‑yong geunroja) and whether the grounds for refusing regular employment were justified, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application. This is a typical case in which the key issues in an unfair dismissal dispute were whether the employee was on probation/trial and whether the refusal of regular employment was justified. It is the type of dispute that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in similar matters. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are: “In a hiring arrangement premised on a three‑month probationary period, whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee, and whether the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary period on the ground of the employee’s lack of job suitability constitutes unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employee qualified as a probationary employee, given that the employment contract provided that the decision on regular employment would be made after a three‑month probationary period, and that under the rules of employment and HR practices, “probation” was in effect operated as “trial employment” (i.e., trial use premised on an assessment of suitability for regular employment). The panel further held that: (i) the employee, as an experienced hire, was employed at an annual salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired employees; (ii) despite a career break, the employee was selected in consideration of prior AMD work experience related to online product sales; and (iii) repeated mistakes in the ordering and order‑to‑product‑code mapping process caused substantial disruption to the company’s operations, and problems with job performance were also revealed in the course of handling customer service calls. Taking these factors together, the panel found that the refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the probationary period was based on a lack of job suitability and was therefore justified. The dismissal in this case, as a refusal to grant regular employment upon expiration of the probationary period, could not be regarded as manifestly lacking in reasonableness in light of social norms. Even applying the more relaxed standard applicable to probationary employees compared to ordinary regular employees, the panel found that just cause existed and therefore determined that the dismissal was not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check how terms such as “probation,” “trial employment,” and “evaluation for regular employment” are described in the employment contract, onboarding pledge, job posting, and similar documents. Where a probationary period is in effect interpreted as a trial employment period, the employee’s performance, results, and attitude during this period are directly linked to the decision on regular employment. Especially for experienced hires, it is important to continuously accumulate materials that can demonstrate performance and accuracy commensurate with prior experience (such as records of compliance with work instructions, the process of correcting errors, and customer response logs). In addition, if toward the end of the probationary period there are signs that the company may refuse regular employment on the grounds of lack of job suitability, the employee should preserve in writing (e.g., by email) the specific criticisms raised, requests for improvement, and whether training or support was provided. This will serve as a basis later to contest whether the evaluation criteria were fair. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, the rules of employment and employment contracts should clearly stipulate the probationary (or trial) period and the fact that a suitability evaluation will be conducted to determine whether to grant regular employment, and this should be sufficiently explained to the employee at the hiring stage. To refuse regular employment to a probationary employee, it is essential not merely to point to unmet expectations, but to objectively record and manage specific grounds of job unsuitability (details of work errors, customer complaints, repetition of issues, circumstances showing lack of improvement despite requests to improve, etc.). Furthermore, because refusal to grant regular employment during or at the end of the probationary period constitutes a dismissal, even though a more relaxed standard applies than for ordinary regular employees, employers must ensure that the decision can be regarded as reasonable in light of social norms. To that end, employers should establish evaluation criteria in advance and maintain an HR management system that conducts evaluations and provides feedback in accordance with those criteria. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether the employee is a probationary employee Because the employment contract provided that the decision on regular employment would be made after a three‑month probationary period, the employee qualifies as a probationary employee. (b) Whether the grounds for refusing regular employment were justified (i) The employee, as an experienced hire, was employed at an annual salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired employees; (ii) Even though there was a career break, the company took into account the employee’s AMD work experience related to online product sales in the hiring decision; (iii) In connection with the ordering tasks performed by the employee, mistakes occurred in the process of mapping order details and product codes, causing substantial disruption to the employer’s operations, and in the course of handling customer service calls… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Whether the employee is a probationary employee Because the employment contract provided that the decision on regular employment would be made after a three‑month probationary period, the employee qualifies as a probationary employee. (b) Whether the grounds for refusing regular employment were justified (i) The employee, as an experienced hire, was employed at an annual salary approximately 20% higher than that of newly hired employees; (ii) Even though there was a career break, the company took into account the employee’s AMD work experience related to online product sales in the hiring decision; (iii) In connection with the ordering tasks performed by the employee, mistakes occurred in the process of mapping order details and product codes, causing substantial disruption to the employer’s operations, and in the course of handling customer service calls… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Severity (Changing Password and Deleting Data on Work PC)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (experienced AMD – ordering error), probationary 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Severity (Changing Password and Deleting Data on Work PC),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (experienced AMD – ordering error) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Dismissal (Experienced AMD – Ordering Error).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article