Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to the “Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Three-Month Probationary Evaluation)” (Unfair Dismissal 84)
- Date2026/01/11 21:29
- Read 206
[Case Information]
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to the “right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation)”
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision-Making Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae353 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.20
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employer hired the worker on the basis of a “three-month probation” and, citing the results of the probationary evaluation, refused to convert the worker to regular employment. The worker claimed that this amounted to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether, based on the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge, the worker’s status could be regarded as that of a probationary (trial) employee, and (ii) whether the refusal to grant regular employment constituted a lawful dismissal. In this case, the Commission found the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to be justified and dismissed the worker’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The key issue in this case is whether, in a hiring arrangement premised on a three-month probationary period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee, and whether the refusal to grant regular employment based on the probationary evaluation constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, where the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge state that “there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company, and the decision on employment will be made based on the results of that evaluation,” can the worker be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee?
Second, where the employer refuses to grant regular employment to a probationary (trial) employee on the basis of the results of the probationary evaluation, does such refusal constitute a dismissal with “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and are there any procedural defects?
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that the worker was a probationary (trial) employee, given that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period and that the decision on regular employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period. The panel also took into account the purport of case law and commentary that, even if the terms “probation” and “trial employment” are used interchangeably in practice, where suitability is to be evaluated, the relationship may be regarded as one of trial employment.
Furthermore, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer’s determination—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued lacked objectivity or rationality. It also noted that, although refusal to grant regular employment constitutes the exercise of the right to terminate probationary employment, it still amounts to a dismissal, and thus the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal applies; the employer had complied with this obligation. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
Therefore, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and that the employer’s action was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is essential to carefully review the contents of the employment contract, any probation/trial-related pledges, and the personnel regulations executed at the time of hiring. Even if the term “probation” is used, where it is expressly stated that regular employment will be decided after a three-month evaluation, the worker may in substance be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee, and the standard for assessing the legitimacy of a refusal to grant regular employment may be more lenient than that applied to ordinary dismissals.
In addition, during the trial (probationary) period, evaluation materials regarding work attitude, performance, and adaptability become key points of contention. It is therefore advisable for workers to keep their own records of work performed, instructions and feedback received, and efforts at improvement, as this can be helpful in the event of a future dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a trial/probationary employment system, the personnel regulations, rules of employment, employment contracts, and probation/trial pledges should be clearly set out in writing so that the “length of the trial period” and the “decision on regular employment based on evaluation” are explicit.
Although the right to terminate probationary employment is generally recognized more broadly than ordinary dismissal, if there is no substantive evaluation or the evaluation is purely formal, it may be deemed an abuse. Employers should therefore maintain concrete evaluation items, evaluation forms, and interview records to secure objectivity and rationality.
Moreover, refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the trial period constitutes a dismissal. Employers must therefore provide written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and must take care not to leave any procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
It is difficult to regard the employer’s assessment—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued as lacking objectivity or rationality. The employer also fulfilled the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and thus there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the refusal to grant regular employment was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
It is difficult to regard the employer’s assessment—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued as lacking objectivity or rationality. The employer also fulfilled the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and thus there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the refusal to grant regular employment was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation), dismissal during trial employment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unlawful Brokerage and Receipt of Entertainment)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to the right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to the Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Three-Month Probationary Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to the “right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation)”
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision-Making Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae353 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.20
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employer hired the worker on the basis of a “three-month probation” and, citing the results of the probationary evaluation, refused to convert the worker to regular employment. The worker claimed that this amounted to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether, based on the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge, the worker’s status could be regarded as that of a probationary (trial) employee, and (ii) whether the refusal to grant regular employment constituted a lawful dismissal. In this case, the Commission found the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to be justified and dismissed the worker’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The key issue in this case is whether, in a hiring arrangement premised on a three-month probationary period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee, and whether the refusal to grant regular employment based on the probationary evaluation constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, where the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge state that “there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company, and the decision on employment will be made based on the results of that evaluation,” can the worker be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee?
Second, where the employer refuses to grant regular employment to a probationary (trial) employee on the basis of the results of the probationary evaluation, does such refusal constitute a dismissal with “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and are there any procedural defects?
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that the worker was a probationary (trial) employee, given that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period and that the decision on regular employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period. The panel also took into account the purport of case law and commentary that, even if the terms “probation” and “trial employment” are used interchangeably in practice, where suitability is to be evaluated, the relationship may be regarded as one of trial employment.
Furthermore, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer’s determination—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued lacked objectivity or rationality. It also noted that, although refusal to grant regular employment constitutes the exercise of the right to terminate probationary employment, it still amounts to a dismissal, and thus the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal applies; the employer had complied with this obligation. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
Therefore, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and that the employer’s action was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is essential to carefully review the contents of the employment contract, any probation/trial-related pledges, and the personnel regulations executed at the time of hiring. Even if the term “probation” is used, where it is expressly stated that regular employment will be decided after a three-month evaluation, the worker may in substance be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee, and the standard for assessing the legitimacy of a refusal to grant regular employment may be more lenient than that applied to ordinary dismissals.
In addition, during the trial (probationary) period, evaluation materials regarding work attitude, performance, and adaptability become key points of contention. It is therefore advisable for workers to keep their own records of work performed, instructions and feedback received, and efforts at improvement, as this can be helpful in the event of a future dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating a trial/probationary employment system, the personnel regulations, rules of employment, employment contracts, and probation/trial pledges should be clearly set out in writing so that the “length of the trial period” and the “decision on regular employment based on evaluation” are explicit.
Although the right to terminate probationary employment is generally recognized more broadly than ordinary dismissal, if there is no substantive evaluation or the evaluation is purely formal, it may be deemed an abuse. Employers should therefore maintain concrete evaluation items, evaluation forms, and interview records to secure objectivity and rationality.
Moreover, refusal to grant regular employment at the end of the trial period constitutes a dismissal. Employers must therefore provide written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and must take care not to leave any procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
It is difficult to regard the employer’s assessment—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued as lacking objectivity or rationality. The employer also fulfilled the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and thus there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the refusal to grant regular employment was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee
In light of the fact that the personnel regulations, employment contract, and probationary employee evaluation pledge clearly state that there will be a three-month probationary period after joining the company and that the decision on employment will be made based on the evaluation during that period, the worker qualifies as a probationary (trial) employee.
B. Whether the refusal to grant regular employment was justified
It is difficult to regard the employer’s assessment—based on the results of the probationary evaluation—that the employment relationship could not be continued as lacking objectivity or rationality. The employer also fulfilled the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and thus there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the refusal to grant regular employment was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation), dismissal during trial employment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unlawful Brokerage and Receipt of Entertainment)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to the right to terminate probationary employment (three-month probationary evaluation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to the Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Three-Month Probationary Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
