[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (probation evaluation grade D).” Adjudicating body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae473 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: (a) --- 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker hired as a probationary employee was denied regular employment on the basis of his probation evaluation results. The worker then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the meaning of “probation” as stated in the job posting, personnel regulations, and employment contract, as well as the propriety of the evaluation procedure, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. This case falls within the type of probationary/trial-period dismissals that frequently arise in the practical work of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are: (i) whether, where only the term “probation” is stated in the job posting, personnel regulations, and employment contract, this can be regarded as a trial (probationary) employment contract; and, on that premise, (ii) whether a dismissal based on the results of the probation evaluation (grade D, not appointable) constitutes a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (i.e., is not an unfair dismissal). Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the term “probation” in the job posting, personnel regulations, and employment contract, etc. was defined as a period for assessing the worker’s job suitability and other factors in order to determine whether to grant regular employment; a probation evaluation system had been established based on the personnel regulations, and scores and grades were assigned in accordance with those standards; the worker’s evaluation score was 57.3 points, corresponding to grade D (not appointable), which constitutes grounds for automatic dismissal under the personnel regulations; and there were no procedural defects, as the reason and timing of the dismissal were notified in writing. Accordingly, the worker fell under the category of a probationary (trial) employee, and the employer’s exercise of its reserved right to terminate by refusing regular employment was based on objectively reasonable grounds and was socially acceptable. Therefore, the Commission held that this dismissal was not an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important from the recruitment stage to confirm precisely whether “probation” is merely a training/adaptation period, or whether it is a “trial period” that determines whether regular employment will be granted. The items and criteria for probation/trial evaluations, as well as the disadvantages in the event of failing the evaluation (refusal of regular employment, automatic dismissal, etc.), should be obtained in writing. If there is any unjust discrimination or evaluation inconsistent with the facts during the evaluation process, objections should be recorded through emails, meeting minutes, and similar evidence, as this will be important in any future dispute over unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, when operating a probation/trial system, the purpose (assessment of job suitability), duration, evaluation criteria, and grounds for refusing regular employment should be stated consistently across the rules of employment, personnel regulations, job postings, and employment contracts. In addition, objective records should be kept of evaluation forms, scores, and the basis for grade determinations, and when deciding on dismissal (refusal of regular employment), the employer should strictly observe procedures such as providing written notice specifying the reasons and timing. Doing so will help prevent unfair dismissal disputes before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Adjudicated (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether the worker was a probationary (trial) employee It is reasonable to regard the “probation” stated in the job posting, personnel regulations, employment contract, etc. as a “trial period” for assessing job suitability and other factors in order to determine whether to grant regular employment. Accordingly, the worker is deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee. (b) Whether the dismissal was justified A probation evaluation was conducted on the worker, who was a probationary (trial) employee, based on the personnel regulations, etc. The worker’s probation evaluation score was 57.3 points, corresponding to grade D (not appointable), which constitutes grounds for automatic dismissal. Therefore, the notice of dismissal, which had the purport of refusing regular employment, was based on just cause, and there were no procedural defects, as the reasons and timing were notified in writing. 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Whether the worker was a probationary (trial) employee It is reasonable to regard the “probation” stated in the job posting, personnel regulations, employment contract, etc. as a “trial period” for assessing job suitability and other factors in order to determine whether to grant regular employment. Accordingly, the worker is deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee. (b) Whether the dismissal was justified A probation evaluation was conducted on the worker, who was a probationary (trial) employee, based on the personnel regulations, etc. The worker’s probation evaluation score was 57.3 points, corresponding to grade D (not appointable), which constitutes grounds for automatic dismissal. Therefore, the notice of dismissal, which had the purport of refusing regular employment, was based on just cause, and there were no procedural defects, as the reasons and timing were notified in writing. / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (probation evaluation grade D), probationary dismissal, 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 ‘Disciplinary Severity (Muttered Profanity)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (probation evaluation grade D) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Probation Evaluation Grade D).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article