[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “probationary dismissal (absence of written notice of refusal of regular employment).” Adjudicating Body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae567 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of Key Issue: … Where an employee’s ability or job suitability is deemed inappropriate during the probationary period, the employer may refuse regular employment. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a dispute over an employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee, brought before the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission fully upheld the employee’s application for relief. After conducting a performance evaluation of an employee who had worked for three months, the employer notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Commission, after comprehensively reviewing the work rules, the employment contract, and their actual operation, found that the employee was a probationary employee, but nevertheless held that the refusal of regular employment was unfair because the employer violated the prescribed procedures. This decision provides practically important guidance for many workplaces that operate probationary or training systems. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where an employer refuses to grant regular employment to an employee who has completed a three‑month probationary period, but does not notify the employee in writing of the specific grounds for such refusal, does that refusal of regular employment (dismissal) constitute unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the work rules and related documents provided that “where an employee’s ability or job suitability is deemed inappropriate during the probationary period, the employer may refuse regular employment,” and that the employee in fact worked for three months, during which the employer decided whether to grant regular employment based on a performance evaluation for that period. On this basis, the panel determined that the employee qualified as a probationary employee. Nevertheless, the employer, when notifying the employee of the termination of the employment contract, failed to specify in writing the concrete grounds for refusing regular employment. The panel emphasized that a refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee also constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore the statutory obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal applies. It further noted that, although the substantive standard for judging the grounds for dismissal may be relaxed in the context of a probationary system, this does not mean that procedural fairness requirements are likewise relaxed. On these grounds, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally defective and therefore unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to remember that even if the employment is labeled as “probationary” or “training,” once you have actually provided work for a certain period, an employment relationship is established, and a refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal. If, when notifying you of contract termination or refusal of regular employment, the employer does not provide you with a written statement setting out the specific reasons, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of procedural defects. In addition, if you keep your own records of performance evaluations, interview notes, whether and when you received any warnings or instructions, and similar matters during the probationary period, these can serve as important evidence later before the Labor Relations Commission to challenge the validity of the employer’s claims (such as lack of ability or poor adaptation). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when operating a probationary or training system, the work rules, employment contracts, and letters of undertaking at the time of hiring should clearly stipulate the probationary period, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and these should be fully explained to employees. In particular, when dismissing an employee during the probationary period or refusing regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period, the employer must strictly comply with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by delivering a written notice stating the “specific and substantive grounds for refusal.” The employer should also objectively accumulate materials such as performance evaluation forms, interview records, and records of warnings or guidance, so that it can later demonstrate before the Labor Relations Commission that its assessment of the employee’s vocational ability and job suitability was reasonable. As this case illustrates, if the employer neglects the written notice procedure, there is a high risk that the dismissal will be found unfair solely on the basis of procedural violations, even if the substantive grounds are to some extent recognized. To ensure lawfulness in unfair dismissal and probationary dismissal cases of this type, it is advisable to have a precise understanding of the legal principles on probationary employees that have been established by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to work with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to ensure that the design of the probationary system and the evaluation and notification procedures are aligned with those legal principles from the outset. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History Given that the work rules provide that “… where an employee’s ability or job suitability is deemed inappropriate during the probationary period, the employer may refuse regular employment,” that the employee worked for three months, and that it was confirmed that the employer decided to refuse regular employment based on a performance evaluation for that period, the period in question is deemed a probationary period intended to assess job suitability and determine whether to grant regular employment. In light of all these circumstances, the employee qualifies as a probationary employee. b. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment The employer notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract but did not provide written notice specifying the concrete grounds for refusing regular employment. This procedural defect renders the refusal unfair. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Given that the work rules provide that “… where an employee’s ability or job suitability is deemed inappropriate during the probationary period, the employer may refuse regular employment,” that the employee worked for three months, and that it was confirmed that the employer decided to refuse regular employment based on a performance evaluation for that period, the period in question is deemed a probationary period intended to assess job suitability and determine whether to grant regular employment. In light of all these circumstances, the employee qualifies as a probationary employee. b. Legitimacy of the Refusal of Regular Employment The employer notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract but did not provide written notice specifying the concrete grounds for refusing regular employment. This procedural defect renders the refusal unfair. / [Further Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Refusal of Regular Employment after Probation (Performance Evaluation of Head of Management Support Department)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (absence of written notice of refusal of regular employment), 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 Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Refusal of Regular Employment after Probation (Performance Evaluation of Head of Management Support Department)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (absence of written notice of refusal of regular employment) can be found under “List of Precedents on Probationary Dismissal (Absence of Written Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article