Section 2: Individual Labor Relations
Chapter 3: Trial Employment and Probation
3. Refusal of Regular Employment and Obligation of Written Notification under the Labor Standards Act
3.1 Refusal of Regular Employment and Obligation of Written Notification under the Labor Standards Act
| Supreme Court Decision on November 27, 2015, Case 2015du48136 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellee: A
* Defendant: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Co-Defendant, Appellant: 컴 Tech Inc. 1. Facts: a. The plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the participant on December 30,2013, with the contract period set from December 30,2013, to January 29,2014. The contract stipulated that "a regular employment contract will be concluded after the evaluation of work performance during a one-month trial period, if there are no significant defects." b. On January 28,2014, the participant issued a notice of dismissal to the plaintiff stating only, "As the one-month trial period has expired, the plaintiff is dismissed effective January 29,2014." 2. Court Judgment: a. According to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer must notify an employee in writing of the reasons and timing of dismissal for it to be effective. This requirement ensures that the employer carefully considers the dismissal, providing specific reasons and timing to facilitate the resolution of any subsequent disputes and allowing the employee to respond adequately. Therefore, written notification must clearly convey the reasons for dismissal from the employee's perspective. Considering the intent and purpose of the probationary system, which is to observe, judge, and evaluate an employee's occupational competence, qualifications, character, and integrity, the refusal to conclude a formal employment contract upon the expiration of the trial period may generally be more broadly accepted than a typical dismissal. However, there must still be an objectively reasonable reason for this refusal, considered justifiable by societal norms. In light of the Labor Standards Act and the conditions for legitimate refusal to enter into a formal employment contract at the end of the trial period, if an employer decides to refuse a formal employment contract in a probationary employment relationship, they must notify the employee in writing of the specific and substantial reasons for this refusal. b. The original court ruled that despite Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act requiring written notification of the reasons for refusal during the trial period, the defendant's co-participant's mere notification of dismissal due to the expiration of the trial period constituted a procedural defect, rendering it ineffective. The court rejected the co-participant's argument that Article 27 does not apply to probationary employment relationships, that verbal notification suffices, or that specifying reasons in written notifications is unnecessary. Upon review, the original court's decision is justified, and there is no illegality in its ruling. The court's decision did not misunderstand legal principles related to dismissal or refusal to renew a contract in a probationary employment relationship, nor did it violate principles of logic and experience, thus staying within the bounds of judicial discretion. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2015두48136.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents