[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary evaluation (refusal of regular employment).” Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2278 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-11 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … In light of the facts that the statements prepared by co‑workers on site generally coincide with the evaluator’s assessment, that there appear to be no particular circumstances suggesting that the worker in this case was intentionally given a maliciously negative evaluation after joining the company, and that the employer appears to have pointed out problems in the worker’s job performance and conducted interviews for improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective and arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity… 1. Legal Implications In this post, we introduce a case involving refusal of regular employment of a probationary (trainee) worker in the context of unfair dismissal, and we summarize the Labor Relations Commission’s decision and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&. Examining how the Commission viewed the objectivity and procedure of the probationary evaluation may serve as an important reference point in future disputes over probationary dismissal/refusal of regular employment, which are distinct from collective redundancies. Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the worker was employed for a certain period in a probationary (trainee) status and then underwent an evaluation on the premise of regular employment. However, regular employment was refused on the grounds of failing to meet the required evaluation score. The worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the refusal of regular employment in substance constituted unfair dismissal, that the evaluation was subjective and arbitrary, and that the procedure was unlawful. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether the job‑fitness evaluation conducted at the end of the probationary period constituted an arbitrary evaluation lacking objectivity and rationality, and whether the refusal of regular employment based on that evaluation amounted to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel in this case held that, in light of the facts that the statements prepared by co‑workers on site generally coincide with the evaluator’s assessment, that there appear to be no particular circumstances suggesting that the worker in this case was intentionally given a maliciously negative evaluation after joining the company, and that the employer appears to have pointed out problems in the worker’s job performance and conducted interviews for improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective and arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity. The panel also found that, in the process of refusing regular employment, the employer followed the prescribed procedures, such as providing written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the refusal, and that it was difficult to find any procedural illegality. Accordingly, the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal was not accepted. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) To challenge an evaluation during a probationary/trainee period, it is not sufficient to rely solely on the outcome that “the score was low.” It is necessary to specifically prove that the contents of the evaluation are markedly inconsistent with co‑workers’ objective statements or with actual job performance, or that there are concrete circumstances indicating that the evaluation was retaliatory, for example due to conflict with a manager or union activity. In addition, to respond to a refusal of regular employment on the grounds of insufficient job performance, it is important to accumulate your own records such as compliance with work instructions, changes after corrective guidance, and performance data. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) For a refusal of regular employment of a probationary worker to be recognized as justified, the evaluation criteria must be defined with a certain degree of clarity, and records must be kept showing that the worker’s actual work attitude and ability were observed and documented in accordance with those criteria. Furthermore, you should secure procedural fairness by documenting instances where problems were pointed out and interviews/guidance for improvement were conducted, and by providing written notice specifying the reasons and timing when refusing regular employment. Doing so will facilitate your defense in subsequent reviews by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing probationary employment and to systematically prepare in advance the legally relevant facts—such as written statements, evaluation forms, and interview records—that can support the objectivity and rationality of the evaluation. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History … In light of the facts that the statements prepared by co‑workers on site generally coincide with the evaluator’s assessment, that there appear to be no particular circumstances suggesting that the worker in this case was intentionally given a maliciously negative evaluation after joining the company, and that the employer appears to have pointed out problems in the worker’s job performance and conducted interviews for improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective and arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity. Furthermore, in refusing regular employment, the employer provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing, and therefore it is determined that there is no procedural illegality in relation to this case. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … In light of the facts that the statements prepared by co‑workers on site generally coincide with the evaluator’s assessment, that there appear to be no particular circumstances suggesting that the worker in this case was intentionally given a maliciously negative evaluation after joining the company, and that the employer appears to have pointed out problems in the worker’s job performance and conducted interviews for improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective and arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity. Furthermore, in refusing regular employment, the employer provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing, and therefore it is determined that there is no procedural illegality in relation to this case. / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Lack of Business Necessity (Standby Order Following Refusal of 30% Salary Reduction)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Provision of Resignation Form Template)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary evaluation (refusal of regular employment), probationary dismissal, personnel 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 post is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous post, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Provision of Resignation Form Template)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of precedents related to probationary evaluation (refusal of regular employment) at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Evaluation (Refusal of Regular Employment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article