[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (absence of evaluation score criteria).” Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해560 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Key issue summary: A. Whether there was any remaining benefit in seeking a remedy for dismissal – As the employer did not provide legitimate monetary compensation equivalent to or exceeding the employee’s wages, it could not be found that the benefit of seeking a monetary compensation order had been extinguished. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer refused to grant regular employment to an employee who had been working under a probationary (trial) employment contract, whereupon the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The employment contract stated that the employee could be hired as a regular employee if deemed suitable for the job. The employer refused regular employment on the ground that the employee’s internal evaluation score fell short of the score required for regular employment. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, comprehensively assessing the legal principles on monetary compensation and on refusal of regular employment following a probationary contract. Although this case is of a different type from collective redundancies, it clearly illustrates the common requirement of objectivity and reasonableness in both personnel evaluations and the assessment of the legitimacy of dismissals. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: (i) whether refusal of regular employment during the probationary period constitutes a dismissal; (ii) if so, whether refusal of regular employment based on unclear evaluation score criteria and procedures can be regarded as a legitimate dismissal; and (iii) whether the employer’s payment of money extinguished the employee’s benefit in seeking a remedy for dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found as follows: there was no evidence that the employer had provided legitimate monetary compensation equivalent to or exceeding the employee’s wages, and therefore it could not be held that the benefit of seeking a monetary compensation order had been extinguished; the employment contract explicitly stated that the employee could be hired as a regular employee if deemed suitable for the job, and thus the employee was in a probationary period for the purpose of deciding whether to grant regular employment; and a probationary system is a labor contract with a reserved right of termination, so refusal of regular employment also constitutes a dismissal, which requires objective and reasonable grounds and appropriateness in light of social norms. In particular, despite having no clear provisions or internal rules (such as work rules or internal regulations) on the score required for regular employment, the employer refused regular employment solely on the ex post facto ground that the employee “did not reach the score required for regular employment.” The Commission held that, even as an exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employee, this lacked objectivity and reasonableness. The dismissal in this case was ultimately determined to be an unfair dismissal lacking just cause and due process. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if you join a company under a probationary or trainee arrangement, once an employment contract has been formed, refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal. Where regular employment is refused without any established criteria, merely on the ground that “your score is low,” there is significant room for dispute. Furthermore, even if the employer has paid some amount of money, unless it constitutes monetary compensation equivalent to or exceeding the wages as determined by the Labor Relations Commission, the benefit in applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal still exists. You should therefore refrain from hastily agreeing to settlements or signing documents, and instead consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when operating probationary or trainee systems, it is essential to clearly set out in advance, in the work rules or HR regulations, the criteria for regular employment (evaluation items, scoring, passing score, etc.), and to retain documentation showing that evaluations were conducted in accordance with those criteria. Although the exercise of the right to terminate a probationary employee is recognized more broadly than ordinary dismissal, objective and reasonable evaluation of factors such as work performance, diligence, and character, as well as appropriateness in light of social norms, is still required. If an employer asserts arbitrary scores or reasons under the perception that this is merely an exercise of managerial prerogative, there is a high risk that the action will be found to constitute unfair dismissal. In addition, where the employer attempts to settle an unfair dismissal dispute through monetary compensation, it should be borne in mind that payment of an arbitrary amount that falls short of the “wage-equivalent amount or more” required by the Labor Relations Commission will not be recognized as extinguishing the benefit in seeking a remedy. If the aim is to resolve the dispute through monetary compensation, the amount to be paid, the basis for its calculation, and the parties’ intent to agree on termination of the employment relationship should be clearly set out, and it is safest to obtain advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that the agreement will be consistent with potential future decisions of the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether there was any remaining benefit in seeking a remedy for dismissal As the employer did not provide legitimate monetary compensation equivalent to or exceeding the employee’s wages, it could not be found that the benefit of seeking a monetary compensation order had been extinguished. B. Whether the employee was in a probationary period Since the employment contract stated that the employee could be hired as a regular employee if deemed suitable for the job, it was determined that the employee was in a probationary period for the purpose of deciding whether to grant regular employment. C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure) Despite the absence of any provisions on the score required for regular employment, the employer notified the employee that “regular employment is refused because you did not reach the score required for regular employment” as the reason for refusing regular employment … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether there was any remaining benefit in seeking a remedy for dismissal As the employer did not provide legitimate monetary compensation equivalent to or exceeding the employee’s wages, it could not be found that the benefit of seeking a monetary compensation order had been extinguished. B. Whether the employee was in a probationary period Since the employment contract stated that the employee could be hired as a regular employee if deemed suitable for the job, it was determined that the employee was in a probationary period for the purpose of deciding whether to grant regular employment. C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure) Despite the absence of any provisions on the score required for regular employment, the employer notified the employee that “regular employment is refused because you did not reach the score required for regular employment” as the reason for refusing regular employment … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Specific Resignation Date)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (absence of evaluation score criteria), dismissal during probation, 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 article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Specific Resignation Date)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to refusal of regular employment after probation (absence of evaluation score criteria) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Absence of Evaluation Score Criteria).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article