Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy) (Unfair Dismissal 562)
- Date2026/07/22 04:09
- Read 15
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해172 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-26 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a worker was hired as a security guard subject to a probationary/trial period, and during that period the employer refused to confirm his employment, citing problems such as repeated contacts with a co-worker. The Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a probationary employment relationship had been formed and whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified, taking into account the contents of the employment contract and the work rules, as well as the purpose of the probationary/trial system. As a result, the worker’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Based on the Commission’s decision, this article organizes the legal principles relating to the dismissal of probationary employees from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, with a view to providing useful implications for both workers and employers in similar future disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a probationary employment relationship can be deemed to have been formed on the basis of the work rules’ provisions on a probationary period, even though the probationary period is not expressly stated in the employment contract, and whether refusal to confirm employment on the ground of continuous contact with a co-worker during the probationary period—amounting to an invasion of privacy and disruption of the working environment—can be recognized as a justified dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and that Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled.
On this basis, the panel held that the worker fell under the category of a probationary employee subject to the provisions on probation/trial in the work rules.
In addition, it found that: the worker had seriously infringed his co-worker’s privacy and working environment by sending text messages and making phone calls continuously and repeatedly to a fellow security guard after joining the company; in light of the nature of security work performed under the direction and supervision of the head of the security team, cooperation and trust with co-workers are essential; and, during the probationary period, a broader scope of assessment of suitability and exercise of the right to terminate is permitted than in the case of ordinary dismissal. On these grounds, the Commission held that the refusal to confirm employment in this case constituted a justified dismissal whose reasonableness is recognized under social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that even if the probationary period is not directly stated in the employment contract, one may in substance be evaluated as a probationary employee by virtue of a “governed by work rules” clause in the contract together with the provisions on probation/trial in the work rules. In particular, during the probationary period, not only basic work ability but also relationships with colleagues, attitudes relating to private life, and other aspects of character and qualities are strictly evaluated. Repeated invasions of privacy or conduct that damages workplace relationships may therefore constitute grounds for refusal to confirm employment at a lower threshold than would apply to ordinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the work rules the establishment of a probationary/trial period, the evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal to confirm employment, and to include in the employment contract a clause providing that the work rules shall apply, thereby clarifying the basis for a probationary employment relationship. Furthermore, even a refusal to confirm employment during the probationary period constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer should organize the specific facts—such as continuous contact with a co-worker and invasion of privacy and disruption of the working environment—and prepare written reasons and background based on objective materials so that the reasonableness of the dismissal can be recognized under social norms.
In this type of unfair dismissal dispute relating to probation/trial, it is crucial in practice to prepare in advance the work rules, employment contracts, evaluation materials, and other documents capable of proving the existence of a probationary employment relationship and the social reasonableness of the grounds for dismissal, and to systematically organize the legal facts from the initial stage when a case arises. Doing so is key to preventing disputes and increasing the likelihood of prevailing.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether a Probationary Employment Relationship Existed
Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled. Accordingly, the relationship falls under a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Whether the Refusal to Confirm Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure)
(i) The worker continuously and repeatedly sent text messages and made phone calls to a fellow security guard after joining the company, thereby seriously infringing the co-worker’s privacy and working environment; (ii) the head of the security team …
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether a Probationary Employment Relationship Existed
Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled. Accordingly, the relationship falls under a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Whether the Refusal to Confirm Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure)
(i) The worker continuously and repeatedly sent text messages and made phone calls to a fellow security guard after joining the company, thereby seriously infringing the co-worker’s privacy and working environment; (ii) the head of the security team … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal for Procedural Default (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions on Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해172 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-26 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a worker was hired as a security guard subject to a probationary/trial period, and during that period the employer refused to confirm his employment, citing problems such as repeated contacts with a co-worker. The Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a probationary employment relationship had been formed and whether the refusal to confirm employment was justified, taking into account the contents of the employment contract and the work rules, as well as the purpose of the probationary/trial system. As a result, the worker’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Based on the Commission’s decision, this article organizes the legal principles relating to the dismissal of probationary employees from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, with a view to providing useful implications for both workers and employers in similar future disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a probationary employment relationship can be deemed to have been formed on the basis of the work rules’ provisions on a probationary period, even though the probationary period is not expressly stated in the employment contract, and whether refusal to confirm employment on the ground of continuous contact with a co-worker during the probationary period—amounting to an invasion of privacy and disruption of the working environment—can be recognized as a justified dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and that Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled.
On this basis, the panel held that the worker fell under the category of a probationary employee subject to the provisions on probation/trial in the work rules.
In addition, it found that: the worker had seriously infringed his co-worker’s privacy and working environment by sending text messages and making phone calls continuously and repeatedly to a fellow security guard after joining the company; in light of the nature of security work performed under the direction and supervision of the head of the security team, cooperation and trust with co-workers are essential; and, during the probationary period, a broader scope of assessment of suitability and exercise of the right to terminate is permitted than in the case of ordinary dismissal. On these grounds, the Commission held that the refusal to confirm employment in this case constituted a justified dismissal whose reasonableness is recognized under social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that even if the probationary period is not directly stated in the employment contract, one may in substance be evaluated as a probationary employee by virtue of a “governed by work rules” clause in the contract together with the provisions on probation/trial in the work rules. In particular, during the probationary period, not only basic work ability but also relationships with colleagues, attitudes relating to private life, and other aspects of character and qualities are strictly evaluated. Repeated invasions of privacy or conduct that damages workplace relationships may therefore constitute grounds for refusal to confirm employment at a lower threshold than would apply to ordinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the work rules the establishment of a probationary/trial period, the evaluation criteria, and the possibility of refusal to confirm employment, and to include in the employment contract a clause providing that the work rules shall apply, thereby clarifying the basis for a probationary employment relationship. Furthermore, even a refusal to confirm employment during the probationary period constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer should organize the specific facts—such as continuous contact with a co-worker and invasion of privacy and disruption of the working environment—and prepare written reasons and background based on objective materials so that the reasonableness of the dismissal can be recognized under social norms.
In this type of unfair dismissal dispute relating to probation/trial, it is crucial in practice to prepare in advance the work rules, employment contracts, evaluation materials, and other documents capable of proving the existence of a probationary employment relationship and the social reasonableness of the grounds for dismissal, and to systematically organize the legal facts from the initial stage when a case arises. Doing so is key to preventing disputes and increasing the likelihood of prevailing.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether a Probationary Employment Relationship Existed
Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled. Accordingly, the relationship falls under a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Whether the Refusal to Confirm Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure)
(i) The worker continuously and repeatedly sent text messages and made phone calls to a fellow security guard after joining the company, thereby seriously infringing the co-worker’s privacy and working environment; (ii) the head of the security team …
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether a Probationary Employment Relationship Existed
Article 9 of the employment contract provides that “matters not specified in this contract shall be governed by the work rules,” and Article 9(1) of the work rules (Probationary Period) provides for a probationary period, while Article 9(2) states, in effect, that during the three‑month probationary period, if work performance is poor or the worker is not suitable for the relevant department, the hiring may be cancelled. Accordingly, the relationship falls under a probationary employment relationship.
(b) Whether the Refusal to Confirm Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure)
(i) The worker continuously and repeatedly sent text messages and made phone calls to a fellow security guard after joining the company, thereby seriously infringing the co-worker’s privacy and working environment; (ii) the head of the security team … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal for Procedural Default (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to probationary dismissal (security guard’s invasion of privacy) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions on Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
