Labor Law Office Assistance Case | Application for Reexamination of an Unfair Dismissal Remedy, Dismissed

The client, the representative director of Company A, conducted interviews to recruit new personnel and, as a result, hired the applicant as a probationary employee.

However, during the probationary period, the applicant received scores that fell short of the criteria for conversion to permanent employment based on an overall evaluation of sincerity, work ability, character, and the like.

Accordingly, the client decided not to convert the applicant to permanent employment.

The applicant then claimed that this measure was unfair and filed an application for remedy against 🔗unfair dismissal.

The Labor Relations Commission did not accept the applicant's claims and dismissed the application for remedy, but the applicant, dissatisfied with this, applied for reexamination.

The client therefore came to the labor law office to respond to the case more systematically.

A dismissal may be recognized as justified where it falls under a ground for discipline specified in the employment contract, the rules of employment, the collective agreement, or the like, or where the relationship of trust between labor and management has been seriously undermined by the worker's conduct.

However, even if the ground for dismissal is justified, there is a high likelihood that the dismissal will be regarded as unfair if the procedures set out in the company's collective agreement or rules of employment are not complied with.

Accordingly, for a dismissal to be justified, it must have not only a valid ground but also procedural legitimacy.

The statutes relevant to the case are as follows.

The client structured the job aptitude evaluation so that it could comprehensively review the employee's job competence and attitude.

Considering the applicant's lack of expertise, refusal of a superior's work instructions, violation of attendance-related regulations, and similar conduct, this refusal of employment has a reasonable basis.

The attorney also emphasized that the written notice obligation had been duly performed so that there was no procedural defect, and that the refusal of employment had been made within the scope recognized as reasonable under generally accepted social norms.

The applicant clearly confirmed and signed the labor contract, which provided that a person deemed unsuitable for continued employment during the probationary period could have their hiring canceled.

The applicant was sufficiently aware in advance that their form of employment was probationary employment.

The argument emphasized that, by claiming through the request for reexamination that they were not a probationary employee, the applicant was contradicting the content of the labor contract and their previous assertions.

This case requires a high level of legal judgment regarding the legitimacy and procedural validity of the dismissal under labor law, so the assistance of an 🔗industrial accident attorney can be crucial.

Daeryun responds professionally across all areas that may arise in the workplace, including damages related to industrial accidents and serious accidents, wages and severance pay, and workplace harassment.

Experts from various fields form a team dedicated to a single case, establish a reasonable strategy, and actively protect the rights of clients.

If you need the assistance of a specialized attorney in a situation similar to the case above, please entrust your case through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.