Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Extension of Probationary Period (Notice of Termination After Employee’s Non-Consent)” (Unfair Dismissal 584)
- Date2026/07/29 04:17
- Read 14
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non-consent).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae923 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-05-21 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer entered into an employment contract providing for a three‑month probationary period, after which the employer would decide on regular employment based on an evaluation. The employer then proposed an extension of the probationary period, and when the employee did not agree, the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship. The case concerns an unfair dismissal decision by the Labor Relations Commission on these facts.
The Commission examined the work rules and the contents of the employment contract, as well as the emails and interview process related to the proposed extension of the probationary period, in order to determine whether the dismissal was unfair. Based on the decision of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, this article summarizes the relationship between probation/trial periods and dismissal from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether it constitutes unfair dismissal for an employer, having hired an employee on the premise of a three‑month probationary (training) period, to unilaterally propose an extension of the probationary period and, after the employee has expressly refused to consent, to notify the employee of termination of the employment relationship.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee was a probationary (trial) employee, given that the employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period with a decision on regular employment to be made based on an evaluation, and that the work rules contained provisions on a probationary system and grounds for refusing regular employment.
The panel further found that the employee had clearly expressed non‑consent to the proposed extension of the probationary period by email, and that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by expressing an intention to end the employment in a meeting with the employee and by notifying the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated.
The Commission therefore held that this dismissal was unfair, on the grounds that the employer terminated the employment relationship after failing to secure an extension of the probationary period, and that, under the legal principle that a just cause under the Labor Standards Act is required for dismissal even during or at the end of a probationary period, the termination could not be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if the term “training” (susub) is used, if the work rules and employment contract provide that, for a certain period, the employee’s suitability will be evaluated and a decision will be made on regular employment, the employee may be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee and thus benefit from the statutory restrictions on dismissal.
In addition, where the employee does not agree to a proposed extension of the probationary period, it is important—just as in this case—to leave a clear record of non‑consent in writing, such as by email. This can serve as important evidence in a subsequent unfair dismissal relief application before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
When operating a probationary or training system, companies should clearly stipulate in their work rules and employment contracts the length of the probationary period, the evaluation method, and the grounds for refusing regular employment. If there is a need to extend the probationary period, the company should proceed on the basis of the employee’s consent, as required under the relevant legal principles.
In particular, even during the probationary period, dismissal or refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal requiring just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore be aware that terminating the employment relationship solely on the grounds of refusal to extend the probationary period or as a mere exercise of managerial prerogative carries a high risk of being found to be an unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee was a probationary (trial) employee
(1) The employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period, after which a decision on regular employment would be made based on an evaluation; (2) the work rules contained a probationary system and provisions on grounds for refusing regular employment. Taken together, the employee was deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee.
b. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The employee clearly expressed, by email, non‑consent to the employer’s proposal to extend the probationary period; (2) the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship in a meeting with the employee and notified the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated, thereby unilaterally terminating the employment relationship between the parties; (3) that the employee agreed to an extension of the probationary period …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the employee was a probationary (trial) employee
(1) The employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period, after which a decision on regular employment would be made based on an evaluation; (2) the work rules contained a probationary system and provisions on grounds for refusing regular employment. Taken together, the employee was deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee.
b. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The employee clearly expressed, by email, non‑consent to the employer’s proposal to extend the probationary period; (2) the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship in a meeting with the employee and notified the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated, thereby unilaterally terminating the employment relationship between the parties; (3) that the employee agreed to an extension of the probationary period … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal During Probation (Change in Training Evaluation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation · Absence of Work Rules)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non‑consent), dismissal during probation, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation · Absence of Work Rules)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non‑consent) can be found under “List of Precedents Related to Extension of Probationary Period (Notice of Termination After Employee’s Non‑Consent).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non-consent).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae923 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-05-21 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer entered into an employment contract providing for a three‑month probationary period, after which the employer would decide on regular employment based on an evaluation. The employer then proposed an extension of the probationary period, and when the employee did not agree, the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship. The case concerns an unfair dismissal decision by the Labor Relations Commission on these facts.
The Commission examined the work rules and the contents of the employment contract, as well as the emails and interview process related to the proposed extension of the probationary period, in order to determine whether the dismissal was unfair. Based on the decision of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, this article summarizes the relationship between probation/trial periods and dismissal from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether it constitutes unfair dismissal for an employer, having hired an employee on the premise of a three‑month probationary (training) period, to unilaterally propose an extension of the probationary period and, after the employee has expressly refused to consent, to notify the employee of termination of the employment relationship.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee was a probationary (trial) employee, given that the employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period with a decision on regular employment to be made based on an evaluation, and that the work rules contained provisions on a probationary system and grounds for refusing regular employment.
The panel further found that the employee had clearly expressed non‑consent to the proposed extension of the probationary period by email, and that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by expressing an intention to end the employment in a meeting with the employee and by notifying the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated.
The Commission therefore held that this dismissal was unfair, on the grounds that the employer terminated the employment relationship after failing to secure an extension of the probationary period, and that, under the legal principle that a just cause under the Labor Standards Act is required for dismissal even during or at the end of a probationary period, the termination could not be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if the term “training” (susub) is used, if the work rules and employment contract provide that, for a certain period, the employee’s suitability will be evaluated and a decision will be made on regular employment, the employee may be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee and thus benefit from the statutory restrictions on dismissal.
In addition, where the employee does not agree to a proposed extension of the probationary period, it is important—just as in this case—to leave a clear record of non‑consent in writing, such as by email. This can serve as important evidence in a subsequent unfair dismissal relief application before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
When operating a probationary or training system, companies should clearly stipulate in their work rules and employment contracts the length of the probationary period, the evaluation method, and the grounds for refusing regular employment. If there is a need to extend the probationary period, the company should proceed on the basis of the employee’s consent, as required under the relevant legal principles.
In particular, even during the probationary period, dismissal or refusal of regular employment constitutes a dismissal requiring just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore be aware that terminating the employment relationship solely on the grounds of refusal to extend the probationary period or as a mere exercise of managerial prerogative carries a high risk of being found to be an unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee was a probationary (trial) employee
(1) The employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period, after which a decision on regular employment would be made based on an evaluation; (2) the work rules contained a probationary system and provisions on grounds for refusing regular employment. Taken together, the employee was deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee.
b. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The employee clearly expressed, by email, non‑consent to the employer’s proposal to extend the probationary period; (2) the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship in a meeting with the employee and notified the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated, thereby unilaterally terminating the employment relationship between the parties; (3) that the employee agreed to an extension of the probationary period …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the employee was a probationary (trial) employee
(1) The employment contract provided for a three‑month probationary period, after which a decision on regular employment would be made based on an evaluation; (2) the work rules contained a probationary system and provisions on grounds for refusing regular employment. Taken together, the employee was deemed to be a probationary (trial) employee.
b. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The employee clearly expressed, by email, non‑consent to the employer’s proposal to extend the probationary period; (2) the employer expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship in a meeting with the employee and notified the employee by email that the employment contract was terminated, thereby unilaterally terminating the employment relationship between the parties; (3) that the employee agreed to an extension of the probationary period … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal During Probation (Change in Training Evaluation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation · Absence of Work Rules)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non‑consent), dismissal during probation, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation · Absence of Work Rules)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extension of probationary period (notice of termination after employee’s non‑consent) can be found under “List of Precedents Related to Extension of Probationary Period (Notice of Termination After Employee’s Non‑Consent).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
