[Case Information] This case is a decision on the issue of “exercise of the right to terminate a probationary contract (request for physical contact with a colleague),” concluded under case number 2026부해169. Date of Decision: 2026-10-08 · Decision Body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해169 Key Issue Summary: A. Whether the worker is a probationary employee: As the employment contract and the rules of employment reserve to the employer the authority, during or at the end of the probationary period, to evaluate job suitability and refuse regular employment, the worker is deemed a probationary employee. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, during the probationary period, the employer refused to grant the worker regular employment on the grounds that the worker failed to comply with the superior’s work instructions, used a colleague’s belongings without permission, and requested physical contact with a colleague. The worker filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, and the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision. The Commission examined the contents of the employment contract and rules of employment, the purpose of the probationary system, and the legitimacy of the reasons and procedures for refusing regular employment. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Where, during the probationary period, a worker fails to comply with a superior’s legitimate work instructions, uses a colleague’s belongings without permission, and requests physical contact with a colleague despite the colleague’s refusal, does the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment (exercise of the right to terminate) constitute an unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employment contract and rules of employment expressly reserve to the employer the authority to refuse regular employment after assessing job suitability during the training/probationary period; that the probationary system is a labor contract with a reserved right of termination, intended to test the worker’s character, qualities, and job suitability; and that, although dismissal or refusal of regular employment during the probationary period is more broadly recognized as justified than ordinary dismissal, it still requires objectively reasonable grounds and appropriateness under social norms. On this basis, the panel found that the worker repeatedly failed to comply with the superior’s legitimate work instructions, used a colleague’s belongings without permission, and requested physical contact from a colleague despite the colleague’s refusal. It further took into account that, given the characteristics of the workplace—where employees live together in a dormitory—relationships with colleagues and personal character are important elements in assessing job suitability. Accordingly, the panel held that there were objectively reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment in this case. In addition, the Commission noted that the rules of employment did not contain any provision allowing challenges to members of the personnel committee, that the grounds for challenge asserted by the worker were not objectively sustainable, that the employer specified concrete facts in advance and requested an explanation, and that the worker was given an opportunity to appear before the personnel committee. Although the notice of refusal of regular employment did not set out every factual detail of the worker’s conduct, the worker had already been informed of the specific grounds through the prior request for explanation and notice of appearance and had sufficient opportunity to respond. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures and the statutory requirement under the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of the grounds for dismissal had been satisfied. Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was the exercise of the employer’s reserved right to terminate a probationary employee, that there were justifiable grounds, and that there were no procedural defects. It therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, regardless of whether the term “probation” or “training” is used, if the employment contract or rules of employment contain provisions such as “regular employment may be refused after evaluation during the probationary period,” the worker may be treated as a probationary employee. During the probationary period, not only work performance but also relationships with colleagues and basic character and conduct in communal living can be core elements in assessing job suitability. Workers should therefore be aware that conduct that may seem minor—such as using a colleague’s belongings or requesting physical contact—can lead to refusal of regular employment. If you wish to challenge a refusal of regular employment as unfair, it is necessary to organize, in concrete terms, whether the superior’s work instructions were improper in that they violated the employment contract or laws and regulations, the circumstances of any conflicts with colleagues, and whether the employer provided an opportunity to explain during the procedure and whether that opportunity was substantive. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the existence and purpose of the probationary period, that the decision on regular employment will be based on the results of an evaluation of job suitability, and that the employer reserves the right to refuse regular employment during or at the end of the probationary period. Although refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee is more broadly recognized than ordinary dismissal, it still requires objectively reasonable grounds and appropriateness under social norms. It is therefore important to document concrete facts—such as failure to comply with work instructions, conflicts with colleagues, and inappropriate requests for physical contact—in logs, written statements, investigation reports, and similar records. Even where the disciplinary procedure provisions do not directly apply to refusal of regular employment, employers should operate in a manner that faithfully reflects the purpose of the dismissal procedures under the Labor Standards Act. This includes specifying concrete facts in advance and requesting an explanation, providing a substantive opportunity to present opinions (e.g., appearance before a personnel committee), and giving written notice of dismissal/refusal of regular employment in a way that links to grounds the worker already knows. This decision by the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms, in unfair dismissal disputes, the criteria for assessing the legitimacy of refusal of regular employment during the probationary period and the level of procedural requirements. It suggests that both workers and employers should, through consultation with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&, prepare in advance the design of probationary systems and strategies for responding to disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the refusal of regular employment, based on failure to comply with a superior’s work instructions during the probationary period, unauthorized use of a colleague’s belongings, and requests for physical contact with a colleague, was found to be justified on the grounds that there were objectively reasonable reasons and no procedural defects. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Whether the worker is a probationary employee As the employment contract and rules of employment reserve to the employer the authority to evaluate job suitability and refuse regular employment during or at the end of the probationary period, the worker is deemed a probationary employee. b. Whether there were justifiable grounds for refusing regular employment It was established that the worker repeatedly failed to comply with the superior’s legitimate work instructions, used a colleague’s belongings without permission, and requested physical contact despite the colleague’s refusal. Given that, in a workplace where employees live together in a dormitory, relationships with colleagues are an important factor in assessing job suitability, there are objectively reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment. c. Whether the procedure for refusing regular employment was lawful 1) The rules of employment contain no provision allowing applications to challenge members of the personnel committee, and the grounds for challenge raised by the worker are not objectively sustainable. As the employer specified concrete facts in advance, requested an explanation, and provided an opportunity to appear before the personnel committee, there is no defect in terms of violating the disciplinary procedures under the rules of employment. 2) Even though the notice of refusal of regular employment did not set out all the specific factual details of the worker’s conduct, the worker already knew the specific grounds and had sufficient opportunity to respond through the prior request for explanation and notice of appearance. In light of this, the procedures under the Labor Standards Act regarding written notice of the grounds for dismissal are deemed to have been complied with. d. Conclusion The worker is a probationary employee, and the refusal of regular employment is justified, as there are justifiable grounds and no procedural defects. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Relief Interest · Refusal of Reemployment (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Supervision/Management)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, right to terminate a probationary contract (request for physical contact with a colleague), probationary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal · Relief Interest (Report of Loss of Qualification During Industrial Accident Medical Treatment)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to the right to terminate a probationary contract (request for physical contact with a colleague) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate a Probationary Contract (Request for Physical Contact with a Colleague).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article