Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 551)
- Date2026/07/18 04:04
- Read 18
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “probationary dismissal (oral notice).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해168 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee.
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee hired as a probationary employee was dismissed during the probationary period, that is, was notified of refusal of regular employment, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s status was that of a probationary employee and whether the employer’s refusal of regular employment was based on just cause and followed lawful procedures.
The issue in this case was:
“Whether, in respect of an employee in a probationary period, notifying dismissal (refusal of regular employment) only orally, and refusing regular employment on the ground of poor job suitability without any objective evidence, constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee where the employment contract expressly provides for a probationary period and the possibility of refusal of regular employment. Second, even taking into account that the employee was in a probationary period, whether the employer’s refusal of regular employment—communicated only orally, with a written notice sent later, and without any objective materials evaluating work ability or attitude—can be recognized as a lawful dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employment contract contained a probationary period and a clause stating that “regular employment may be refused in consideration of work performance ability and work attitude,” and that the employee was contesting the dismissal as unfair on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee.
On this basis, the Commission held that the employee was a probationary employee.
The Commission further held that, even where a dismissal occurs during a probationary period, it still constitutes a dismissal as an exercise of a right to terminate, and therefore must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and be socially acceptable in light of general social norms. In this case, the Commission pointed to: (i) the complete absence of any objective evidence supporting the employer’s alleged grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment); (ii) the fact that the dismissal was first communicated orally and only three days later was a written notice sent; and (iii) the fact that these procedures fell short of even the minimum lawful procedural requirements for a probationary dismissal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal lacking just cause and proper procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly recognize that, once an employment relationship has been formed, refusal of regular employment—even for a probationary employee—constitutes a dismissal and therefore requires just cause and proper procedure. If you have received notice of dismissal only orally, or if reasons such as evaluation results or poor work attitude have not been presented in writing or supported by objective materials, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also very important, for purposes of later proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, to keep notes and evidence regarding whether you are a probationary employee, how the probationary period and criteria for refusal of regular employment are stipulated in your employment contract, and the method and timing of the dismissal notice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to refuse regular employment during a probationary period, you must, in line with the purpose of the probationary system, conduct specific observation and evaluation of the employee’s work attitude, job performance, and suitability, and preserve these as objective materials (evaluation forms, interview records, warning letters, etc.). Since a probationary dismissal is still a dismissal, you must comply with the procedural requirements under the Labor Standards Act—such as just cause for dismissal, advance notice of dismissal, and written notice—in order to reduce the risk of a finding of unfair dismissal.
In particular, the practice of first notifying dismissal orally and then belatedly sending a written notice is highly likely to be found procedurally defective by the Labor Relations Commission. Employers should therefore establish internal processes to ensure that written notices clearly stating the grounds and effective date of dismissal are delivered at an appropriate time.
In order to prevent disputes in this type of probationary dismissal case and to facilitate reasonable determinations if disputes do arise, it is crucial to accurately understand the legal nature of probationary contracts and the legal principles governing the exercise of the right to terminate, and to design and operate in advance evaluation, record-keeping, and notification procedures that conform to these principles. This is the advice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal (refusal of regular employment) was justified (grounds and procedure)
There was no objective evidence whatsoever to confirm the grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment), and, given that the dismissal was notified orally and only three days later was a written notice sent, the procedure was not lawfully carried out, and therefore the dismissal was unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal (refusal of regular employment) was justified (grounds and procedure)
There was no objective evidence whatsoever to confirm the grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment), and, given that the dismissal was notified orally and only three days later was a written notice sent, the procedure was not lawfully carried out, and therefore the dismissal was unfair. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Application Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (oral notice), probationary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (oral notice) can be found at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “probationary dismissal (oral notice).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해168 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee.
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee hired as a probationary employee was dismissed during the probationary period, that is, was notified of refusal of regular employment, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s status was that of a probationary employee and whether the employer’s refusal of regular employment was based on just cause and followed lawful procedures.
The issue in this case was:
“Whether, in respect of an employee in a probationary period, notifying dismissal (refusal of regular employment) only orally, and refusing regular employment on the ground of poor job suitability without any objective evidence, constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee where the employment contract expressly provides for a probationary period and the possibility of refusal of regular employment. Second, even taking into account that the employee was in a probationary period, whether the employer’s refusal of regular employment—communicated only orally, with a written notice sent later, and without any objective materials evaluating work ability or attitude—can be recognized as a lawful dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employment contract contained a probationary period and a clause stating that “regular employment may be refused in consideration of work performance ability and work attitude,” and that the employee was contesting the dismissal as unfair on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee.
On this basis, the Commission held that the employee was a probationary employee.
The Commission further held that, even where a dismissal occurs during a probationary period, it still constitutes a dismissal as an exercise of a right to terminate, and therefore must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and be socially acceptable in light of general social norms. In this case, the Commission pointed to: (i) the complete absence of any objective evidence supporting the employer’s alleged grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment); (ii) the fact that the dismissal was first communicated orally and only three days later was a written notice sent; and (iii) the fact that these procedures fell short of even the minimum lawful procedural requirements for a probationary dismissal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal lacking just cause and proper procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly recognize that, once an employment relationship has been formed, refusal of regular employment—even for a probationary employee—constitutes a dismissal and therefore requires just cause and proper procedure. If you have received notice of dismissal only orally, or if reasons such as evaluation results or poor work attitude have not been presented in writing or supported by objective materials, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also very important, for purposes of later proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, to keep notes and evidence regarding whether you are a probationary employee, how the probationary period and criteria for refusal of regular employment are stipulated in your employment contract, and the method and timing of the dismissal notice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to refuse regular employment during a probationary period, you must, in line with the purpose of the probationary system, conduct specific observation and evaluation of the employee’s work attitude, job performance, and suitability, and preserve these as objective materials (evaluation forms, interview records, warning letters, etc.). Since a probationary dismissal is still a dismissal, you must comply with the procedural requirements under the Labor Standards Act—such as just cause for dismissal, advance notice of dismissal, and written notice—in order to reduce the risk of a finding of unfair dismissal.
In particular, the practice of first notifying dismissal orally and then belatedly sending a written notice is highly likely to be found procedurally defective by the Labor Relations Commission. Employers should therefore establish internal processes to ensure that written notices clearly stating the grounds and effective date of dismissal are delivered at an appropriate time.
In order to prevent disputes in this type of probationary dismissal case and to facilitate reasonable determinations if disputes do arise, it is crucial to accurately understand the legal nature of probationary contracts and the legal principles governing the exercise of the right to terminate, and to design and operate in advance evaluation, record-keeping, and notification procedures that conform to these principles. This is the advice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal (refusal of regular employment) was justified (grounds and procedure)
There was no objective evidence whatsoever to confirm the grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment), and, given that the dismissal was notified orally and only three days later was a written notice sent, the procedure was not lawfully carried out, and therefore the dismissal was unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee qualifies as a probationary employee
Given that the employee’s employment contract provided for a probationary period and stipulated that regular employment could be refused in light of work performance ability and work attitude, and that the employee also argued the unfairness of the dismissal on the premise that he/she was a probationary employee, the employee was held to be a probationary employee.
B. Whether the dismissal (refusal of regular employment) was justified (grounds and procedure)
There was no objective evidence whatsoever to confirm the grounds for dismissal (refusal of regular employment), and, given that the dismissal was notified orally and only three days later was a written notice sent, the procedure was not lawfully carried out, and therefore the dismissal was unfair. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Application Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (oral notice), probationary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (oral notice) can be found at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
