Standard Guide: In every company there are employees who perform very well, and those who perform poorly. Companies pay incentives to good workers, while they apply disciplinary measures to poor employees to ensure better performance in the future. In some instances companies may dismiss poorly-performing employees, and in such cases, the labor laws have strict standards designed to protect employees. Generally, disciplinary dismissal requires justifications in 1) reason for dismissal, 2) the severity of disciplinary actions, and 3) disciplinary procedures in order to be justifiable dismissal. Justification for dismissing under-performing employees should be determined by considering not only the criteria required for normal disciplinary dismissal, but also occupational characteristics related to poor sales performance by the particular employee. In order to dismiss employees with poor sales records, a company needs to maintain a detailed checklist to verify that it has provided sufficient opportunities for improvement to these employees and that the poor sales have been ongoing for a long period of time.d Koo Keunseo,「Justification for Dismissal of Poor Performers」『Labor Law Theory and Practice Association』Nov. 2011; Bang, Sangin,「Legal Issues Surrounding Poor Performers」,『Monthly Labor Law』Feb. 2010; Cho, Sanguk,「Management of Poor Performers」,『Monthly Labor Law』Dec. 2012; Kim, Sunghee,「Dismissal of Poor Performers」,『Gangwon Law Studies』Feb. 2012


[Government Guidelines for Ordinary]

1. Possession of insufficient skills for the job and poor work performance is considered reasons for ordinary dismissal. In order for such dismissals to be justifiable, certain conditions must be met.

Remarkably insufficient skills for a job and poor work performance can be reasons for ordinary dismissal despite the lack of reason for disciplinary action, since the purpose for a labor contract is for an employee to offer work for wages and for the employer to pay wages for that work. A remarkable failure to fulfill the obligation to provide work can become a reason for terminating the employment contract. However, as Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act restricts such dismissals, there should be a justifiable reason why poor performance or a failure to provide the contractual work is serious enough to dismiss the employee. The court Seoul High Court ruling on October 25, 2006, 2006nu5730, which was finally completed at the Supreme Court ruling on February 9, 2007, 2007doo18287.
stipulates that “justifiable reasons” for a dismissal due to poor work performance or a failure to provide the contractual work mean that the employee’s work performance is too poor to maintain employment relations according to socially accepted understanding. Such situations shall be judged on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the Labor Relations Commission has also decided that an employer’s dismissal of an employee for failure to provide contractual work serious enough to make it impossible to maintain employment relations shall be deemed ordinary, not disciplinary, dismissal.

2. Disciplinary vs. ordinary dismissal

When an employer creates rules of employment that formulate service regulations and working conditions for the workplace (in cases where there is a labor union, the collective agreement can replace the ROE), disputes between the employees and the employer can be reduced to a minimum. Disciplinary dismissal not only financially disadvantages the dismissed employees, but also dishonors them and creates a critical disadvantage when seeking a new job. It is therefore desirable that dismissals for “remarkably poor work performance” are deemed grounds for ordinary dismissal, not disciplinary dismissal.


3. Objective and fair evaluation

(1) Basic principle
Evaluating an employee’s job skills, work performance, etc., is one of the employer’s managerial rights and can be considered as up to the employer’s discretion. Even though this evaluation has an element of unilateral determination by the employer, it is not determined as an arbitrary judgment or an abuse of rights. However, in cases where such evaluation is used to avoid the legal conditions for dismissal or to urge an employee to accept early retirement, violates the Constitution or the law, or if it remarkably violates objective and equitable criteria, any dismissal that follows may be determined as illegal or subject to legal judgment.

(2) Suitability and objectivity of evaluation criteria (Considerations when designing an evaluation system)
Evaluations should be given based on the employee’s job skills and work performance. In cases where the employer’s individual feelings or a subjective judgment are involved regardless of the working process or results, such as “his/her working process is inefficient”, such evaluation will not be accepted as reasonable. Aspects subject to evaluation shall be itemized for proper evaluation of an employee’s job performance. For example, when evaluating sales positions, if an employer puts more weight on 360 degree feedback from an employee’s co-workers than on objective sales results (customer management), this will not be admitted as reasonable. Items for evaluation should be subdivided so as to provide as much detail as possible, and evaluation results divided into diversified levels to minimize subjectivity or arbitrary ratings. An evaluation system will be seen as more objective if it is composed of multiple levels (e.g. 5 levels) rather than a personal rating without different levels, and the evaluation is based on detailed items. Designing an evaluation in accordance with input from employees through the labor-management council, the labor union, or the employee representative, will help to increase objectivity and rationality.

(3) Validity of the evaluation method
① Individual and group evaluations (evaluation unit)
When a group evaluation is converted into an individual evaluation, the close relationship between individual and group work performance results should be reflected.

② Evaluations with and without ratings (evaluation factors)
Evaluations which can describe an employee’s job skills and performance as an objective number rating can easily be considered rational. However, if such an evaluation includes subjective, difficult-to-measure parts such as level of adaptation to the business organization, the evaluation criteria will not likely be determined as fair.

③ Relative and absolute evaluations (evaluating method)
Generally, absolute evaluations are easily accepted as rational, while relative evaluations are not, as a certain number of personnel must receive the lowest rating in relative evaluations. Provided, ① in cases where a relative evaluation is improved through the use of absolute evaluation factors so that it does not relegate a certain number of personnel to the lowest rating in an arbitrary manner, there is a high possibility that such an evaluation will be determined as rational. ② In cases where a relative evaluation has introduced a 360 degree feedback evaluation system for a certain higher employment position, then gradually extended its application to other positions, and continuously applied its criteria and procedures based on rationally-designed evaluation content and items, such an evaluation can be seen as rational. The employer shall not determine that an employee is unqualified in terms of job skills or performance simply because that employee has received the lowest rating in a relative evaluation, but shall consider other factors in overall justification of a dismissal.

(4) Reliability in evaluations

① Selection of evaluator(s)
In principle, when the evaluator is the same person evaluating all target employees, this increases consistency and fairness. Provided, in cases where it is difficult to use the same person as an evaluator due to company size and number of employees, some exceptions can be admitted. On the other hand, validity of difficult-to-measure items can increase when multiple evaluators are used through a 360 degree feedback evaluation or an evaluation committee, or when the evaluation is designed with several stages. In cases where multiple evaluators gave the same person low ratings, this evaluation can be regarded as highly reliable.

② Compliance with evaluation criteria and procedures
Unless previously-determined evaluation criteria and procedures are implemented equitably, evaluation results will not be seen as fair. Even if, for example, there are three stages in the evaluation, if a particular stage (directors’ evaluation) is omitted, the personnel evaluation will be deemed in violation of personnel evaluation regulations for its lack of objectivity and fairness.

③ Notification of evaluation results, and the appeal process
If there is a system for target employees to appeal evaluations after notification of the results, this will increase the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation system.

(5) Selection of target employees for mandatory training, redeployment, etc.
When using evaluations to select target employees for mandatory training or redeployment, the necessity for and possibility of improving job skills should be estimated objectively: such training/deployment can be accepted as necessary if an employee’s evaluation has revealed poor job skills for a sustained period of time in several evaluations and mistakes have been similar in nature. On the other hand, if an employer dismisses an employee due to incidental mistakes, this will not be deemed as justifiable.

In cases where an employer requires that a certain number of personnel be allocated to the lowest level through a relative evaluation (for the purpose of a continuous system of dismissals), employees who simply receive the lowest rating will not be judged as remarkably deficient in their job skills. On the other hand, the appropriate ratio of employees who must receive training or who must be redeployed by means of personnel evaluations shall be decided by considering the overall situation such as job characteristics, the company’s personnel management policies, etc.

It is important that employers prepare reasonable exemptions when selecting target employees for training or redeployment. In cases where such selection occurs, it is necessary to consider items that decrease the ability to carry out one’s job and perform well such as internal and external factors (e.g.: external assignments, deterioration of business environment, etc.), and personal conditions (such as disease, accident, etc.), in order to increase their acceptability. In particular, even for those with a lack of job skills and low performance, it is necessary to settle rules for reasonable exemptions in consideration of the characteristics of the evaluation system and the business environment. Such examples include: ① Those who have received a high rating in work-related achievement and job skills in a recent evaluation; ② Those who were recently hired; ③ Those who were assigned to a new organization or other department within one year prior to the evaluation; ④ Those whose jobs have changed less than one year prior to the evaluation; ⑤ Those who have returned from a full-time union officer’s position less than one year prior to the evaluation; and ⑥ Those who have returned from maternity leave or child care leave less than one year prior to the evaluation.

4. Providing training opportunities to improve job skills

(1) Efforts to improve job skills

The employer should choose the target employees for a skill-development program through objective and fair evaluations, and then first provide various opportunities to improve work attitude, work skills, and job performance before deciding to dismiss them.

(2) Method and quality of training opportunities
The program to improve job skills should not be simply for formality, but be practically designed to improve employee job skills.
5. Efforts to avoid redeployment

(1) Providing new opportunities
In cases where those with poorer job skills and poor job performance cannot match their abilities with their current job, new opportunity through redeployment is desirable in terms of restricting dismissal and protecting their employment. To validate the redeployment, it should be used as an instrument not to push target employees to resign, but to satisfy the company’s need to improve organizational efficiency through assigning the right person to the right job.

(2) Redeployment to improve job skills
The company shall provide target employees with the conditions to be able to practically improve their job skills, so that such opportunities are not simple formalities but result in actual improvement.

6. Selection of those subject to dismissal

Justification for dismissal due to poor employee job performance shall be determined from the viewpoint of whether the employer can expect, in terms of socially-accepted norms, to maintain the employment in light of the poor performance.

(1) Possibility of improving job skills and/or performance
If the employer confirms the difficulty to expect continuous employment due to an employee’s poor job skills, this means that the employer cannot find any improvement after providing the employee with several opportunities for improvement through such methods as training, redeployment, etc. Even though the employer has provided training opportunities, if the target employee refuses to attend the training sessions, receives lower training grades than fair and objective average scores, and shows no improvement after training and returning to work, it may be judged that the employer cannot expect any further improvement. In addition, even after an employee has received several penalties such as wage reductions and suspension from work due to poor job performance, if the employee receives the lowest consecutive ratings again, this can be regarded as he/she is a target employee for dismissal due to poor job performance. In cases where the employee could not improve job skills or performance after redeployment, this person may also be a legitimate target for dismissal.

(2) Considerable burden to work
In cases where the target employee has caused considerable burden to the company’s business due to remarkable deficiency of job performance, and has sustained this poor performance for a considerable period without any improvement expected, it can legally be estimated that the employee has caused considerable burdens to work. This shall be estimated by considering overall influences affecting business results, sales, etc.



[Dismissal due to Poor Sales Performance]

A company based in Germany (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), which employs 30 local people in its Korean office, provides a standard authentication service for industrial machinery, electronics, automobiles, etc. The Company was introduced to a manager (hereinafter referred to as “the Employee”) of a competitor company through a recruiting agency, and this Employee submitted a written target sales plan in which he promised a yearly sales increase of 5 billion won, beginning with an increase of 2 billion won in sales in the first year. The Company, trusting the Employee’s submitted proposal, hired him as an executive director with an annual salary of 100 million won. The Company expected him to play a vital role in increasing sales, and assigned him to the head position of a new project, but his sales results were remarkably low, at only 2 percent of target for the first 6-month period. As a result, the Company abolished the new project team, and re-assigned him to the sales team. Even as part of the sales team his sales were very low, as a result of which the Company dismissed him. The Employee then applied for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he was dismissed unfairly.


1. Employee’s Claim

The Employee began working for the Company on January 11, 2013, where he worked as a managing director in charge of the new project team. The Employee was transferred to the Sales team on July 2, 2013, and was then dismissed unfairly on December 2, 2013. (i) The Company exercised its managerial (personnel) right in a one-sided manner without stipulated rules for disciplinary action or procedures in the rules of employment. (ii) When notifying him of his dismissal, the Company did not define any specific reason for dismissal, and so violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. (iii) While dismissing the Employee due to his low sales results, there were no evaluation criteria, and the Company even ignored some sales achievements. As a result, this dismissal is an abuse of managerial rights. In addition, the Employee, along with other employees, had submitted a letter detailing the Company president’s unethical behaviors to the German headquarters, which was the real reason for the dismissal. Therefore, this dismissal is unfair.

(2) Employer’s Claim
The Company decided to pay this Employee an annual salary of 100 million won and assigned him to the new project team after trusting in his target sales plan, which described how the Employee would increase sales by 200 million won by the first quarter of 2013, and then increase sales by 2 billion won by December 2013. However, in reality, his sales only reached 36 million won (2 percent of the target) by June 30, 2013. After the new project team was abolished, he was assigned to the Sales team in order to provide him with another opportunity. The Employee then proposed a new target, which was to bring in 400 million won by December 2013, but his actual sales were 3.6 million won in August 2013 and 700,000 won in September 2013. As his sales performance was significantly lower than what he promised in his target sales plan, the Company was justified in dismissing the Employee. The dismissal procedure was justified when the Company provided written notification of dismissal, stipulating the effective date of and reason for dismissal.

2. Actual Events

(1) The Employee submitted a business plan in which he stated that, based on his 17 years of experience with a competitor company, if the Company hired him, he would increase sales by 5 billion won every year through organization of the project team, to which plan he attached verification of his performance in his previous company. Trusting this target sales plan, the Company hired him in the position of managing director in charge of the new project team.

(2) At the ‘Kick-off meeting’ on January 18, 2013, the Employee announced his target sales plan in which he would hire 7 engineers by February 2013 and increase sales by 200 million won in the first quarter, increasing to sales of 2 billion won by December 2013.

(3) The Employee’s new project team obtained only 2 percent (36 million won) of the targeted amount by the end of June 2013.
(4) In combination with 8 other employees, the Employee submitted a Letter of Request to the German headquarters, detailing the Korean branch’s negative working environment and irregularities within the Company.

5) The new project team which the Employee was in charge of was abolished, after which the Employee was assigned to the Sales team on September 1, 2013. Again, compared to his new sales projections, the Employee’s sales performance was remarkably low.
(6) On October 2, 2013, the Company provided notification of dismissal to the Employee with a letter advising him of his dismissal, which would become effective on December 1, 2013, and which stipulated that the two-month period from October 2 to December 1 would be his period of advance notice for dismissal and that he was not required to come to work. The Employee was then dismissed as scheduled on December 2, 2013.

3. Judgment Criteria 000 Korea’s appeal case for unfair dismissal: April 28, 2014, Joongang 2014buhae167)


(1) Justification for disciplinary action
The Company dismissed the Employee because of his extremely poor sales performance, not because of any misconduct on his part, and therefore the point under consideration is whether this dismissal because of poor sales can be construed as reason for dismissal. The Company hired the Employee after trusting in the target sales plan that the Employee had submitted, but the Employee achieved only 2 percent of the target amount in sales, and although the Company provided sufficient time and opportunity for improvement, the Employee’s sales results remained extremely low. Considering the Company hired the Employee based on his business plan, which he was so profoundly unable to fulfil, this is the reason for the disciplinary action.

(2) Justification for the severity of disciplinary action
The Supreme Court ruled regarding the severity of disciplinary action, “Dismissal can be accepted as justifiable when the cause attributable to the employee is too severe to allow for the continuance of employment according to social norms. Determination of whether or not the employment can be sustained according to social norms shall take into consideration the employer’s business goals and characteristics, workplace conditions, the employee’s position and job description, motivation for and details of misconduct, disorder caused by his/her misconduct, their influence on the company, and the company’s past decisions in similar situations.” (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 2007, 2005du10149)

Considering the Employee’s position and salary level and comparing the sales results he achieved, which were drastically lower than was expected at the time of hiring, and much lower than is generally accepted for someone in his position and salary range, relations were broken due to causes attributable to the Employee, which made it hard to maintain the employment relationship.

(3) Justification for disciplinary procedures
In cases where the procedures for disciplinary action are not stipulated in the rules of employment, the Supreme Court has ruled: “The rules of employment are composed of rules regarding service regulations and working conditions like wages regardless of what they are called. If the individual employment contract contains rules regarding the aforementioned working conditions, this can also become the rules of employment. In cases where such individual employment contract corresponding to the rules of employment does not contain any procedural rules regarding the holding of a disciplinary action committee or offering an opportunity for the employee concerned to account for him or herself, disciplinary action is not invalid even if the employer skipped such procedures.” (Supreme Court ruling on November 27, 1998, 97nu14132)

The Company did not have rules of employment regarding disciplinary action, but in a situation where the employment contract stipulates: “the termination of this employment contract may be conducted by either party informing the other in writing at least two months in advance”, without reference to a rule regarding disciplinary action committees, etc., it is hard to see the disciplinary action as invalid even if the Company conducted the dismissal without following such procedure.


4. Conclusion

(1) This is a typical case where an employee’s extremely low performance can be cause for dismissal even though the employee was not guilty of any misconduct. In a situation where an employee proposes an exaggerated sales target and the employer hired him based on that proposal, if the employee is not able to achieve the proposed sales target, he can be subject to disciplinary action. Generally, this kind of situation is ideally resolved by adjusting the employee’s annual salary or assigning him to a different position, thereby providing him with another opportunity. However, the failure in the aforementioned case was so extreme that the Company could not accept an employment relationship any longer due to the Employee’s remarkably dismal performance in contrast to his annual salary, authority, position and pre-employment claims.

(2) When an employer intends to dismiss an employee, there should be justifiable reason as stipulated by Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act. In particular, in cases where the employer intends to dismiss the employee due to his/her poor performance, the employer must pay careful consideration to satisfying the conditions required for justifiable dismissal. With this in mind, the checklist in section 2 of this article (“Meeting the Requirements for Justifiable Dismissal of Poor Performers”) is designed to meet these requirements for dismissing poor performers, and contains five items which should be applied when considering dismissal due to poor performance: 1) Objective selection of appropriate employees; 2) Procedure for impartial evaluation; 3) Provision of opportunity to improve poor performance; 4) Related Company employment regulations; and 5) The degree of poor performance. Accordingly, this checklist not only provides criteria to minimize the occurrence of unfair dismissal, but also suggests good reference points which an employer can consider essential for introduction into the personnel system regarding the termination of poor performers.

[Dismissal after a Poor Personnel Evaluation]

In October 2006, the employee (hereinafter, “the Employee”) was employed as an accounts manager by Company T (hereinafter, “the Company”) and, due to a poor personnel evaluation result, she was dismissed in September 2008. She received a less-than-satisfactory evaluation on the teamwork portion and communication skills implemented in early 2008. Due to this poor result, the employee was required to submit a “Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)” in April 2008. As the Employee refused to accept her poor scoring in the personnel evaluation, she rejected repeated requests from the department head to submit a PIP. Therefore, the company initiated a “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) concerning the employee in May 2008, where the department head evaluated whether her teamwork and communication skills improved during the following three months. The Company did not find any improvement in her attitude and determined there would be no possibility for any progress. As a result, the Company dismissed her for disciplinary reasons on September 18, 2008. The Employee filed a relief application for unfair dismissal, claiming that the dismissal after a short-term poor personnel evaluation would be too severe a punishment in terms of common societal standards and is therefore not justifiable.


I. Company T’s Claim

1. Reason for dismissal

The Employee received a less-than-satisfactory result in her 2007 personnel evaluation especially in regards to her teamwork and communication skills. Since the department head recognized that the Employee was unable to get along with her team members and even caused disputes with them due to her uncontrollable temper, the department head reminded the Employee several times that teamwork would be major evaluation criteria in her 2007 personnel evaluation. When the department head asked her four times to submit a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) regarding the parts of her 2007 evaluation where she scored poorly, she did not submit one, making excuses repeatedly. The Company gave her a final chance through a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), but her resistance toward improving her performance worsened the situation.
2. Justification for the dismissal

The Employee had frequently showed excessive anger at work. She reacted sensitively to criticism, she spoke ill of other coworkers and the Company, all of which deteriorated the workplace atmosphere. The Employee also showed unacceptable behavior and an immature attitude at work toward her superior and fellow coworkers, which affected her work negatively. In addition, the Company provided enough opportunities for her to improve her attitude through verbal and written warnings, requiring a PIP, and requiring a CAP in the disciplinary process, but she ignored these efforts and showed no change in attitude. Accordingly, the Company decided to dismiss the Employee according to the related provision in the rules of employment, judging that the Company could no longer expect any improvement from her.


II. Employee’s Claim

1. Problem in reasons for dismissal

During the last two years since her hiring by the Company, the Employee had not been absent without permission and had never seriously violated company rules, and, in 2007, she worked more hours, including overtime, holiday and night work, than any other coworker on her finance team. The reason for the Employee’s dismissal was because of her lack of teamwork and poor communication skill in her accounting department. The Employee was dismissed after the personnel evaluation not because of her vocational ability, but because of her teamwork and communication issues as evaluated according to the department head’s subjective judgment. That is to say, the reasons for dismissal were due to the poor teamwork and communication skills during her personnel evaluation, and as the Employee could not improve those portions through a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), she was dismissed.

Here, the main issues to be considered are: 1) whether an employee can be dismissed because of a poor personnel evaluation, and 2) whether it is justifiable to dismiss an employee because of an evaluation that the employee possesses poor teamwork and communication skills.

1) Whether an employee can be dismissed because of a poor personnel evaluation
In order for a dismissal because of a poor personnel evaluation to be justified, the personnel evaluation shall be equitable, and the employee’s performance shall be inferior from an objective view to a level where the Company cannot maintain employment with the employee in terms of common social norms.

2) Whether it is justifiable to dismiss an employee because of an evaluation that the employee possesses poor teamwork and communication skills
The Employee handled her duties in accounting, tax, and customs clearance issues very professionally as a first-line person-in-charge and had been well recognized by persons-in-charge from other relevant departments. Concerning the poor teamwork and communication, the department head had to manage his/her subordinate employees and make every effort to promote overall cooperation at work with amicable communication among department members, but the department head attributed the Employee’s problems as an individual fault and regarded the problems as reasons for dismissal. These problems could be too severe to cut off employment with the Employee when viewed in terms of common social norms.

2. Problem in application of disciplinary punishment

The Employee had carried out her duties sincerely without ever missing deadlines during the last two years of employment. The reason for her dismissal was the low scores in her personnel evaluation. The poor performance result was not due to vocational ability, but due to the Employee’s lack of teamwork and communication skills. It could be estimated that the Employee’s lack of teamwork and communication skills might be solved through the department head’s leadership and special team-building activities between department members. However, without such efforts, the department head took advantage of the poor personnel evaluation result to dismiss the Employee. Even though the department head judged that the Employee had serious faults, which are subject to disciplinary action, dismissal was too severe of a disciplinary measure and was therefore an abuse of the employer’s personnel right.


III. Related Judicial Rulings

The company dismissed the employee because she received four consecutive low scores on her personnel evaluation, which is an abuse of the employer’s personnel right. (Jan 27, 2006, Seoul District Court 2005 Kuhap 23879)
As the company’s personnel evaluation system did not use an absolute grading method, but a relative grading method, the employee’s vocational ability could not be evaluated objectively simply because he/she received the lowest grade in the personnel evaluation. In the personnel grading process, the department head and the directors concerned admitted that the employee had technical vocational ability and professional knowledge, but the employee’s problems in human relations had caused frequent disputes in the workplace. In reviewing all circumstances, the company dismissed the employee only because of her four consecutive low grades on the personnel evaluation, which could not be regarded objectively as a justifiable dismissal. Accordingly, this dismissal due to this personnel grading is an abuse of the employer’s personnel right.
When the company dismissed the employee who received the lowest grades in two consecutive personnel ratings according to the Personnel Evaluation Regulation, it is not an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary right. (Dec 28, 2004, Seoul District Court, 2003 Guhap 39306)
The employee received the lowest personnel grade, ‘C,’ in two consecutive personnel ratings in the second half of the year 2001 and in the second half of the year 2002. In the past, the employee had also received disciplinary punishment several times due to poor personnel ratings. In reviewing such circumstances, when the company dismissed the employee who received the lowest grades in the two consecutive personnel ratings, it is not an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary right.

It is justifiable to dismiss the employee who has been given continuously low grades in her personnel review. (Jan 24, 2003, Seoul District Court No 4, 2002 Guhap 16306)
The employee’s job was to handle personnel affair, which was rather simple and regular work. Even though the employee had done the same work for many years, the employee repeated similar kinds of mistakes. Therefore, every year at the personnel evaluation, the employee received directions to improve working skills and related knowledge. However, the employee did not make any progress and, in fact, things worsened. In reviewing all the circumstances, even though the employee suffered the disadvantage from dismissal, this dismissal was neither too harsh nor an abuse of the disciplinary right.


IV. Conclusion

The Company dismissed the Employee after just one year’s personnel evaluation, and furthermore, the personnel evaluation was not made on vocational ability, but was a subjective judgment on her team work and communication problems. After considering all the circumstances, the Company expected an unfavorable result from the labor commission and suggested a compromise. The Employee agreed to settle. The conditions of the settlement were that the Company would pay seven months of additional salary and give positive feedback on any reference checks from potential employers.