A court ruled that it was unfair to use a score based on only two days of work during the evaluation of a probationary employee as a basis for permanent employment.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11 reported that in a lawsuit filed by A against the Central Labor Relations Commission asking to cancel the decision of 'not unfair dismissal,' the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in December last year.
A signed a labor contract with B Company, which manages earthwork projects, to handle safety management duties around November 2022. It was agreed that permanent employment would be decided based on an evaluation after a three-month probation period. However, B notified A on January 16 of the following year, two months later, that permanent employment was not possible based on performance, attitude, and other results. A was asked to complete existing work by February 15, which was still within the probation period.
A filed a request for relief, disputing the rejection of permanent employment. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission subsequently dismissed the relief request, stating that the rejection of permanent employment was justified and did not violate procedures. In response, A filed an administrative lawsuit to cancel this decision.
In court, he argued that the reasons for rejecting his permanent employment were not specifically presented and that B unfairly rejected him without a fair evaluation, which constituted a procedural error. B stated, 'Three personnel evaluated A, giving scores of 3.74, 4.6, and 3.8 out of 10, and based on this, rejected his permanent employment.'
The first-instance Seoul Administrative Court focused on the period during which B evaluated A. Two employees who worked with A assessed him after just two days and less than a month of working together. B used this as the basis for notifying that 'employment was not possible.'
The court noted, 'Considering that the evaluation of A was conducted just two months after the start of work, it is insufficient to see that A's abilities or attitudes were evaluated fairly and objectively.'
The court also found that the process of notifying the rejection of permanent employment violated the Labor Standards Act. Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates that 'an employer must notify the employee in writing of the reasons and timing for the dismissal, and the reasons must be specifically stated.' However, the notice sent by B to A did not provide reasons or the evaluation sheet.
The court stated, 'It cannot be recognized that B notified A of specific and substantial grounds for the rejection of permanent employment in writing, and it is difficult to see that there are objective and reasonable grounds for the rejection.'
The Central Labor Relations Commission appealed the first-instance ruling last January.