[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “dismissal during probation (absence of written notice refusing regular employment).” Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해567 Key issue summary: A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee Article 10 (Termination of Employment Contract) of the employment contract provides that the expiration of a probationary or trial employment period without entering into the main contract constitutes grounds for termination. Article 5(2) of the rules of employment provides that “during the probationary period of newly hired employees, the company shall evaluate them based on separately established criteria, taking into account their health, attendance, and work attitude, and if, as a result of such evaluation, the employee is deemed to lack work performance ability or job suitability, the company may refuse regular employment.” … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer notified the employee, who had worked for three months under a probationary period, that the employment contract would be terminated by refusing regular employment. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether the employee qualified as a probationary employee and whether the refusal of regular employment was procedurally justified, based on the contents of the employment contract and rules of employment, the actual course of work, and the evaluation procedures. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is “whether the employee falls under the category of probationary employee and, where the employer, upon expiration of the probationary period, refuses regular employment without notifying the employee in writing of the specific reasons for such refusal, whether that refusal of regular employment constitutes an unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the employee was a probationary employee, in light of the following: the employment contract contains a clause stating that the main contract need not be entered into upon expiration of the probationary or trial employment period; the rules of employment provide that, for newly hired employees, the company may refuse regular employment if, during the probationary (trial) period, the employee is evaluated based on health, attendance, and work attitude and is deemed to lack job suitability; and, in practice, the employer conducted a work performance evaluation over the three-month period and then decided to refuse regular employment. The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair because, although the employer notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract, it did not specify in writing the concrete reasons for refusing regular employment, such as the evaluation results or lack of job suitability, and this failure to notify the reasons was evaluated as a procedural defect. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if the term “probation” or “trial employment” is used, refusal of regular employment upon expiration of the probationary period constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and therefore requires just cause and lawful procedures. In particular, if, when notified of the refusal of regular employment, no specific reasons are provided in writing, it is advisable to consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, focusing on whether there is a procedural defect. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and employment contract the purpose of the probationary period, the evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusing regular employment, and in practice to systematically retain evaluation materials from the probationary period. Furthermore, when deciding to refuse regular employment at the end of the probationary period, the employer should organize the evaluation results and specific reasons for unsuitability and notify them in writing, thereby preventing an unfair dismissal finding due to procedural defects. In this regard, to prepare for unfair dismissal disputes and Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures, employers should bear in mind that, even when operating probationary or training systems, they must maintain record-keeping and written notice procedures at the same level as for ordinary dismissals. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the employee was found to be a probationary employee and the employer’s failure to notify in writing the specific reasons for refusing regular employment was deemed a procedural defect, leading to a finding of unfair dismissal. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether the Employee Was a Probationary Employee Article 10 (Termination of Employment Contract) of the employment contract provides that the expiration of a probationary or trial employment period without entering into the main contract constitutes grounds for termination. Article 5(2) of the rules of employment provides that “during the probationary period of newly hired employees, the company shall evaluate them based on separately established criteria, taking into account their health, attendance, and work attitude, and if, as a result of such evaluation, the employee is deemed to lack work performance ability or job suitability, the company may refuse regular employment.” The employee worked for three months, and it was confirmed that the employer decided to refuse regular employment based on a work performance evaluation for that period. Taking into account that this period appears to have been a probationary period intended to assess job suitability and determine whether to proceed with formal employment, the employee is deemed to be a probationary employee. B. Whether the Refusal of Regular Employment Was Justified Although the employer notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract, it did not notify in writing the specific reasons for refusing regular employment, and thus a procedural defect exists. Accordingly, the refusal of regular employment constitutes an unfair dismissal. [Further Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Remedial Interest·Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dismissal during probation (absence of written notice refusing regular employment), dismissal during probation, 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, “‘Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Evaluation of Probationary Employment of General Affairs Director)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to dismissal during probation (absence of written notice refusing regular employment) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal During Probation (Absence of Written Notice Refusing Regular Employment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article