Section 2: Individual Labor Relations
Chapter 3: Trial Employment and Probation
1. Legal Nature and Effect of Trial Employment
1.4 Additional Reasons for Exercising Reserved Right of Rescision After the Conclusion of Trial Employment Contract
| Seoul High Court Decision on July 6, 2017, Case 2017nu36894 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: ○○○○ Corporation
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Codefendant Participant: Jeong ○○ 1. Facts: a. The participant received an email from the manpower agency ○○○○ on February 10, 2015, stating that the plaintiff was hiring for a regular employment position in human resource planning and recruitment, requiring over five years of experience in personnel planning/strategy, talent development, system improvement, and talent acquisition, and applied for a job at the plaintiff's company. b. The participant was informed by the plaintiff's HR support team leader, Lee ○○, on March 9, 2015, about a three-month probationary period. However, they were not informed that the final decision on their regular employment would be made at the executive meeting. c. The probationary employment contract between the plaintiff and the participant, signed on April 1, 2015, lasted until June 30, 2015. It stipulated that the contract could be rescinded if the application or documents were found to be falsified and that the participant could be dismissed for poor performance, attitude in training, or misconduct during the probation. d. Although instructed by team leader Lee ○○ to design a system incorporating HR evaluation factors, the participant did not perform this task during the probationary period. They were also directed to draft a document for an executive meeting after analyzing the "2015 Manpower Operation Plan" and determining the most beneficial recruitment and placement strategies, but failed to perform these tasks. e. As the HR manager, the participant was responsible for hiring interns for the plaintiff's ○○○○ Center in early May 2015. However, preparations such as pre-visiting the interview site and setting up the interview were inadequate. The participant assigned tasks to other employees the day before the interviews and was instructed by team leader Lee ○○ to draft daily work reports, which were nearly identical up until the end of the probationary period. f. The plaintiff's union leader, Yu ○○, sent a text message to team leader Lee ○○ during the intern interviews, suggesting that the participant's interpersonal skills should be considered for regular employment, citing several instances of the participant's inadequate performance and communication problems confirmed by other employees. g. The participant's mentors, team leader Lee ○○ and manager Hwang ○○, conducted a probation evaluation on June 29, 2015, awarding a job performance score of 65 and a capability score of 15, for a total of 80 points. Manager Hwang ○○ drafted a document stating this score met the criteria for regular employment, scheduled for final review at the executive meeting on July 1, 2015, and received approvals from the HR support team leader (Lee ○○), the overall management planning head, and the CEO. h. Meanwhile, the plaintiff convened a personnel committee on the same day, consisting of the sales overall head Jang ○○, management planning overall head Jeong ○○, and network department head Kim ○○, to discuss the participant's regular employment. All committee members expressed opinions of unsuitability about the participant, citing insufficient job performance and capability evaluations, and notified them of their failure to secure regular employment. 2. Court Judgment: a. A trial employment contract is a type of employment contract that includes a reserved right of rescission (an employment contract concluded with the provision that future employment will be terminated if it is deemed inappropriate for regular employment), intended to evaluate an employee's character and ability to perform future responsibilities during a specified period to decide on their regular employment. Dismissing an employee during the trial period or refusing to sign a formal contract upon its expiration is an exercise of the employer's reserved right of rescission. This right is broadly recognized, as it serves the purpose of observing and evaluating the employee's job suitability, including their skills, character, and integrity. However, even in these Case s, the reasons for dismissal must be objectively reasonable and socially acceptable. b. Article 10 of the probationary employment contract states, "Matters not specified in this contract and future changes shall be governed by company rules," and Articles 4 and 5 of the plaintiff's personnel regulations specify that "the personnel committee deliberates or decides on personnel matters." Even though the plaintiff added the decision of the executive meeting to the evaluation process after concluding the probationary employment contract, this addition is based on the standards prepared under the probationary contract and company rules to assess the participant's job suitability, thus including it within the reasons for exercising the reserved right of rescission. c. The verification documents prepared by employees of the plaintiff contain negative facts or evaluations regarding the participant's job performance and interpersonal relationships. Although most were written after the refusal of regular employment, they confirm that there were issues in the participant's relationships with other employees during the probationary period. Furthermore, the plaintiff hired the participant as an experienced employee to take on the role of HR manager, making their immediate capability to perform relevant duties a crucial factor in the decision to continue employment. However, during the trial period, the participant failed to establish an effective manpower operation system in the human resources management area, and although they prepared a proposal for improving the promotion system in the personnel system improvement area, it lacked the level of expertise and innovation demanded by the executives. The participant's performance in daily reporting duties required during the trial period also suggests a neglect of responsibilities, indicating that their practical knowledge and skills as the HR manager overseeing personnel were somewhat lacking. |
|||||
| Download : 서울고법 2017누36894.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents