Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Punitive Nature (F Grade in Performance Evaluation)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 555)
- Date2026/07/19 04:08
- Read 17
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether an “F grade in a performance evaluation” constituted a punitive measure.
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae84 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that being given an F grade in the performance evaluation constituted a disadvantageous disciplinary measure and seeking relief.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in particular, whether the performance evaluation in question fell under “other punishment” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the employee’s application.
Among the many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case illustrates the boundary of when personnel appraisals and performance evaluations may be regarded as “punishment” subject to relief by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the measure of assigning the lowest (F) grade in a regularly conducted performance evaluation for all employees constitutes a disadvantageous disposition falling under ‘dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction or other punishment’ prohibited by Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.”
The employee argued that the F grade itself was a disadvantageous measure equivalent to unfair dismissal, on the grounds that an F grade is linked to exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and to a provision allowing removal from position if the lowest grade is received three times in a row.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the performance evaluation conducted by the employer was not a sanction for past misconduct, but a personnel management measure regularly implemented for all employees under the same criteria; that it differed in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations; and that although the results of the performance evaluation could potentially be linked to future measures such as exclusion from promotion or removal from position, the mere fact that an F grade was given on this occasion did not directly and immediately result in any disciplinary action or removal from position.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to regard the employee’s F grade in the performance evaluation as “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
In the absence of any dismissal disposition in this case, the panel held that mere dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation result could not be regarded as a “punitive personnel measure” that would be subject to an application for relief from unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if one is dissatisfied with a personnel appraisal or performance evaluation, it is important to note that such dissatisfaction alone does not readily lead to the conclusion that the measure constitutes “punishment” equivalent to unfair dismissal or disciplinary action.
However, if the performance evaluation result actually leads to specific disadvantageous measures such as exclusion from promotion, removal from position, or transfer, then those subsequent measures must be separately challenged as to whether they constitute “punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and whether there was just cause and due process.
If you wish to challenge the fairness of a performance evaluation, it is important to sufficiently gather and organize specific facts, such as the ambiguity of evaluation criteria, discrepancies between objective data and the evaluation content, and circumstances suggesting discriminatory evaluation of particular individuals.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly establish that the performance evaluation and personnel appraisal system is a regular, company-wide, and systematic personnel management tool, and to clearly distinguish in both regulations and practice that its purpose, procedures, and requirements differ from those of disciplinary action.
In particular, where there are provisions linking the lowest grade to exclusion from promotion or removal from position, any subsequent measures must be supported by business necessity, objective grounds, and procedural fairness. Otherwise, they may be viewed as “punitive personnel measures” and become problematic before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Accordingly, employers should enhance the fairness of performance evaluations through advance notice of evaluation criteria, training of evaluators, preservation of evaluation records, and establishment of objection procedures. Personnel measures such as removal from position, transfer, or disciplinary action based on performance evaluation results should be decided cautiously in line with separate legal standards (business necessity, degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, absence of abuse of rights, etc.).
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
a. The performance evaluation was not imposed as a sanction for the employee’s past misconduct or wrongdoing, but was a personnel management measure regularly conducted for all employees under the same criteria, and thus differs in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations.
b. The employee cited the linkage between the evaluation and the provisions on exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and removal from position upon receiving the lowest grade three times in a row, and argued that this performance evaluation…
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
a. The performance evaluation was not imposed as a sanction for the employee’s past misconduct or wrongdoing, but was a personnel management measure regularly conducted for all employees under the same criteria, and thus differs in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations.
b. The employee cited the linkage between the evaluation and the provisions on exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and removal from position upon receiving the lowest grade three times in a row, and argued that this performance evaluation… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Notice by Building Manager)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, punitive nature (F grade in performance evaluation), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Notice by Building Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to punitive nature (F grade in performance evaluation) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Punitive Nature (F Grade in Performance Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether an “F grade in a performance evaluation” constituted a punitive measure.
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae84 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that being given an F grade in the performance evaluation constituted a disadvantageous disciplinary measure and seeking relief.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in particular, whether the performance evaluation in question fell under “other punishment” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the employee’s application.
Among the many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case illustrates the boundary of when personnel appraisals and performance evaluations may be regarded as “punishment” subject to relief by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the measure of assigning the lowest (F) grade in a regularly conducted performance evaluation for all employees constitutes a disadvantageous disposition falling under ‘dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction or other punishment’ prohibited by Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.”
The employee argued that the F grade itself was a disadvantageous measure equivalent to unfair dismissal, on the grounds that an F grade is linked to exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and to a provision allowing removal from position if the lowest grade is received three times in a row.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the performance evaluation conducted by the employer was not a sanction for past misconduct, but a personnel management measure regularly implemented for all employees under the same criteria; that it differed in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations; and that although the results of the performance evaluation could potentially be linked to future measures such as exclusion from promotion or removal from position, the mere fact that an F grade was given on this occasion did not directly and immediately result in any disciplinary action or removal from position.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to regard the employee’s F grade in the performance evaluation as “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
In the absence of any dismissal disposition in this case, the panel held that mere dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation result could not be regarded as a “punitive personnel measure” that would be subject to an application for relief from unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if one is dissatisfied with a personnel appraisal or performance evaluation, it is important to note that such dissatisfaction alone does not readily lead to the conclusion that the measure constitutes “punishment” equivalent to unfair dismissal or disciplinary action.
However, if the performance evaluation result actually leads to specific disadvantageous measures such as exclusion from promotion, removal from position, or transfer, then those subsequent measures must be separately challenged as to whether they constitute “punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and whether there was just cause and due process.
If you wish to challenge the fairness of a performance evaluation, it is important to sufficiently gather and organize specific facts, such as the ambiguity of evaluation criteria, discrepancies between objective data and the evaluation content, and circumstances suggesting discriminatory evaluation of particular individuals.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly establish that the performance evaluation and personnel appraisal system is a regular, company-wide, and systematic personnel management tool, and to clearly distinguish in both regulations and practice that its purpose, procedures, and requirements differ from those of disciplinary action.
In particular, where there are provisions linking the lowest grade to exclusion from promotion or removal from position, any subsequent measures must be supported by business necessity, objective grounds, and procedural fairness. Otherwise, they may be viewed as “punitive personnel measures” and become problematic before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Accordingly, employers should enhance the fairness of performance evaluations through advance notice of evaluation criteria, training of evaluators, preservation of evaluation records, and establishment of objection procedures. Personnel measures such as removal from position, transfer, or disciplinary action based on performance evaluation results should be decided cautiously in line with separate legal standards (business necessity, degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, absence of abuse of rights, etc.).
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
a. The performance evaluation was not imposed as a sanction for the employee’s past misconduct or wrongdoing, but was a personnel management measure regularly conducted for all employees under the same criteria, and thus differs in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations.
b. The employee cited the linkage between the evaluation and the provisions on exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and removal from position upon receiving the lowest grade three times in a row, and argued that this performance evaluation…
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that receiving an F grade in the performance evaluation was a disadvantageous disposition. However, in light of the following circumstances, the performance evaluation does not fall under “other punishment” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
a. The performance evaluation was not imposed as a sanction for the employee’s past misconduct or wrongdoing, but was a personnel management measure regularly conducted for all employees under the same criteria, and thus differs in purpose, procedure, and requirements from the types of disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension from duty, wage reduction, reprimand) stipulated in the personnel management regulations.
b. The employee cited the linkage between the evaluation and the provisions on exclusion from the pool of promotion candidates and removal from position upon receiving the lowest grade three times in a row, and argued that this performance evaluation… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Notice by Building Manager)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, punitive nature (F grade in performance evaluation), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Notice by Building Manager)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to punitive nature (F grade in performance evaluation) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Punitive Nature (F Grade in Performance Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
