Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Failure to Substantiate Probation Evaluation (Refusal of Final Hiring)” (Unfair Dismissal 609)
- Date2026/08/09 04:12
- Read 5
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1273 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-15 · Outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of key issue: For a refusal of final hiring to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. The actual…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee completed the probationary period, the employer refused to grant final hiring. The employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employer asserted that the employee’s probation evaluation score fell below the standard and therefore refused final hiring, but failed to submit any specific evaluation sheets or objective materials to the Labor Relations Commission. Ultimately, in this case handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the employee’s arguments and held that the refusal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer refuses final hiring at the end of the probationary period but fails to prove the objectivity and fairness of the probation evaluation, can the legitimacy of the dismissal (refusal of final hiring) still be recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer, in the notice of refusal of final hiring, merely stated “probation evaluation score 57 points, below the required score,” that the employer failed to submit any probationary evaluation sheets or detailed evaluation materials from which one could ascertain according to what evaluation items and criteria the score had been calculated, and that the burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as having been based on a probation evaluation result derived from objective and fair criteria, nor could it be considered to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability, by that result alone, to justify refusal of final hiring.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary period, refusal of final hiring at the end of probation constitutes a dismissal, and therefore “just cause” under the Labor Standards Act and social acceptability are required. If the company merely repeats that “the score is low” without presenting specific evaluation sheets or evaluation criteria, you should consider that there is ample room to challenge the decision by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
When evaluating whether to grant final hiring to probationary employees, employers should establish in advance specific and detailed evaluation items and standard scores, and clearly explain these to the employees. In addition, during the actual evaluation, employers should ensure multiple supervisors participate in the evaluation, maintain clear scoring methods, and preserve the original evaluation sheets so that they can prove objectivity and fairness before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
As in this case, if the employer is unable even to submit the evaluation sheets, there is a very high risk that refusal of final hiring will be found to constitute unfair dismissal, even if the employee’s actual work attitude was poor. This point requires particular attention in practice.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
For a refusal of final hiring of an employee to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. Even the probationary evaluation sheet for the employee in this case, which was said to have actually been prepared, was not submitted to this Commission. The burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer, and…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
For a refusal of final hiring of an employee to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. Even the probationary evaluation sheet for the employee in this case, which was said to have actually been prepared, was not submitted to this Commission. The burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer, and… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Provide Written Notice (Probation · Refusal of Final Hiring)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Provide Written Notice (Probation · Refusal of Final Hiring)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring) at the “List of Decisions Related to Failure to Substantiate Probation Evaluation (Refusal of Final Hiring).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1273 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-15 · Outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of key issue: For a refusal of final hiring to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. The actual…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee completed the probationary period, the employer refused to grant final hiring. The employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employer asserted that the employee’s probation evaluation score fell below the standard and therefore refused final hiring, but failed to submit any specific evaluation sheets or objective materials to the Labor Relations Commission. Ultimately, in this case handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the employee’s arguments and held that the refusal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer refuses final hiring at the end of the probationary period but fails to prove the objectivity and fairness of the probation evaluation, can the legitimacy of the dismissal (refusal of final hiring) still be recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer, in the notice of refusal of final hiring, merely stated “probation evaluation score 57 points, below the required score,” that the employer failed to submit any probationary evaluation sheets or detailed evaluation materials from which one could ascertain according to what evaluation items and criteria the score had been calculated, and that the burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as having been based on a probation evaluation result derived from objective and fair criteria, nor could it be considered to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability, by that result alone, to justify refusal of final hiring.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even during a probationary period, refusal of final hiring at the end of probation constitutes a dismissal, and therefore “just cause” under the Labor Standards Act and social acceptability are required. If the company merely repeats that “the score is low” without presenting specific evaluation sheets or evaluation criteria, you should consider that there is ample room to challenge the decision by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
When evaluating whether to grant final hiring to probationary employees, employers should establish in advance specific and detailed evaluation items and standard scores, and clearly explain these to the employees. In addition, during the actual evaluation, employers should ensure multiple supervisors participate in the evaluation, maintain clear scoring methods, and preserve the original evaluation sheets so that they can prove objectivity and fairness before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
As in this case, if the employer is unable even to submit the evaluation sheets, there is a very high risk that refusal of final hiring will be found to constitute unfair dismissal, even if the employee’s actual work attitude was poor. This point requires particular attention in practice.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
For a refusal of final hiring of an employee to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. Even the probationary evaluation sheet for the employee in this case, which was said to have actually been prepared, was not submitted to this Commission. The burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer, and…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
For a refusal of final hiring of an employee to be lawful, the evaluation result must be shown to have been derived from objective and fair criteria and to possess sufficient reasonableness and social acceptability to justify refusal of final hiring. However, the notice of refusal of final hiring merely stated that the probation evaluation score was 57 points, which fell short of the required score, and there were no specific evaluation materials from which to verify on what evaluation items and on what basis that score had been calculated. Even the probationary evaluation sheet for the employee in this case, which was said to have actually been prepared, was not submitted to this Commission. The burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of the grounds for refusal of final hiring rests with the employer, and… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Provide Written Notice (Probation · Refusal of Final Hiring)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Provide Written Notice (Probation · Refusal of Final Hiring)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to failure to substantiate probation evaluation (refusal of final hiring) at the “List of Decisions Related to Failure to Substantiate Probation Evaluation (Refusal of Final Hiring).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
