[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to cancel during probation (evaluation/interview procedure).” Decision date: 2026-07-30 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1847 Key issues summary: A. Whether a fixed probationary period was stipulated It was held that a probation (trial) period had been set in advance, given that the rules of employment, employment contract, probation evaluation confirmation, probation evaluation sheet, etc. provided that a probationary period of up to three months from the date of hire could be imposed. B. Whether the employment contract could be terminated before the end of the probationary period The rules of employment and the probation evaluation confirmation, etc. provided that, during the probationary period, the decision on regular employment would be made based on the probationary employee’s evaluation… 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case, heard before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, concerns a probationary employee and illustrates how the Commission viewed the scope of exercising a reserved right of cancellation during the probationary period. At Labor Law Firm Law&, this is also a frequently raised practical issue regarding dismissal during probation/trial employment, and it is necessary to understand that the applicable standards differ from those governing redundancy (collective dismissal). Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee was hired by the company on the premise of a probationary (trial) contract for a certain period, and the rules of employment, employment contract, and documents related to probation evaluation stipulated the probationary period and evaluation method. While time remained in the probationary period, the employer decided not to grant regular employment based on the probation evaluation results and notified the employee in writing of the termination of the employment contract. The employee then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether “it constitutes unfair dismissal for the employer to exercise a reserved right of cancellation and terminate the employment contract before the end of a fixed probationary period for a probationary employee.” Further, it was also in dispute “whether the operation of the probation evaluation was arbitrary, and whether the failure to follow procedures equivalent to disciplinary procedures undermined the legitimacy of the dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel noted that the rules of employment, employment contract, probation evaluation confirmation, and probation evaluation sheet stipulated that a probationary period of up to three months from the date of hire could be imposed; that the fact that the decision on regular employment would be made based on evaluations during the probationary period had been notified in advance and consented to by the employee; that it was difficult to view the probation evaluation as having been conducted in a merely formal or arbitrary manner targeting only a specific employee; that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegations of unfair evaluation; and that, although there was no provision in the rules of employment, etc. requiring disciplinary procedures or stepwise warnings, the company nonetheless held two interviews requesting improvement and provided written notice of dismissal. The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case constituted a lawful exercise of the reserved right of cancellation during the probationary period and was justified. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Although the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act apply to probationary employees as well, case law and the Labor Relations Commissions tend to recognize grounds for dismissal or refusal of regular employment during probation more broadly than for ordinary dismissal. Accordingly, it is important for probationary employees to carefully record and retain matters pointed out during the probationary period, interview contents, and evaluation sheets, and to secure in advance evidence capable of proving that the evaluation lacked objectivity and fairness. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, on the premise that the core of the probation/trial system is the “reserved right of cancellation,” the rules of employment, employment contract, and probation evaluation confirmation should clearly stipulate the probationary period, evaluation items and procedures, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and these matters should be notified in advance and consent obtained. In operating the probation evaluation in practice, the same standards and procedures should be applied to all probationary employees, and interview records, evaluation sheets, and details of requests for improvement should be documented so that the objectivity and reasonableness of the evaluation can later be substantiated before the Labor Relations Commission. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing probation/trial employment relationships and to prepare in advance evaluation materials and records of procedural compliance that support the conclusion that the exercise of the reserved right of cancellation was reasonable under social norms. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that terminating the employment contract during the probationary period of a probationary employee constituted a justified termination of the employment contract as an exercise of the reserved right of cancellation during the probationary period. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether a probationary period was stipulated In light of the fact that the rules of employment, employment contract, probation evaluation confirmation, probation evaluation sheet, etc. provided that a probationary period of up to three months from the date of hire could be imposed, it was determined that the probation (trial) period had been set in advance. B. Whether the employment contract could be terminated before the end of the probationary period Given that the rules of employment and the probation evaluation confirmation, etc. provided that, during the probationary period, the decision on regular employment would be made based on the probationary employee’s evaluation, and that this had been notified in advance and consent obtained, it was determined that the employment contract could be terminated before the end of the probation (trial) period. C. Justifiability of the termination of the employment contract (grounds and procedure) It was difficult to view the employer’s probation evaluation as having been conducted in a merely formal or arbitrary manner or as having targeted only the employee; there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegations; and although neither the rules of employment nor the probation evaluation confirmation required that, when terminating the employment contract based on the probation evaluation, the employer provide an opportunity to explain equivalent to disciplinary procedures or follow stepwise warning procedures, the employer nonetheless held two interviews with the employee requesting improvement and fulfilled the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal. The termination was therefore held to be justified. [See More Related Decisions] - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Relief Interest · Refusal of Reemployment (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, reserved right of cancellation during probation (evaluation/interview procedure), dismissal during trial employment, performance 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, “Disciplinary Severity Excess (Disciplinary Action for Remarks Made 4 Years and 4 Months Earlier) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the reserved right of cancellation during probation (evaluation/interview procedure) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Reserved Right of Cancellation during Probation (Evaluation/Interview Procedure).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article