"Likely to Pass, Asked If Able to Start Work" But Not Hired... What Is the Lawsuit Outcome?

Court: "Notification of 'Likely' Status Alone Does Not Constitute Recognition of Employment Contract"

The court ruled that receiving a notification indicating a high likelihood of passing alone is insufficient to be considered as having entered into an employment contract.

Seoul Administrative Court.

According to the legal community on the 30th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 13 (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-dae) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by cosmetics manufacturer Company A against the Chairman of the Central Labor Relations Commission, seeking cancellation of the commission's decision to rescind an unfair hiring cancellation remedy review.

In October 2022, Company A posted a job announcement seeking a General Manager of Administration and interviewed applicant Mr. B. A few days later, the company representative called Mr. B and asked, "When can you start work?", "What was the agreed salary?", and said, "The final candidates have been narrowed down to two people, but for now, you (Mr. B) have been selected," and "This is almost final," among other conversations.

However, Company A decided to hire another candidate besides Mr. B and sent a message stating, "The final confirmation requires consultation with the staff, so we said we would contact you again on Monday, but after internal discussions, it seems difficult for you to join, so we have put it on hold. You may seek employment elsewhere."

Mr. B filed a remedy application with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal by Company A, but after it was dismissed in May last year, he requested a review by the Central Labor Relations Commission. The Central Commission overturned the regional commission's decision, stating, "Since a hiring intention was made toward Mr. B, an employment relationship was established, and there was no just cause for dismissal, so it was an unfair dismissal." Company A filed this lawsuit seeking cancellation of the Central Commission's ruling.

The court ruled in favor of Company A. The bench stated, "The statements by the CEO can only be interpreted as internally considering the conclusion of an employment contract with Mr. B as highly likely," and "It is difficult to see that the intention to hire Mr. B was clearly and objectively expressed externally."

The court further stated, "There must be a concrete agreement on essential or important matters of the employment contract, such as wages, duties, and contract duration, or at least an agreement on standards and methods that can be specifically determined in the future," and "If there is no specific agreement between the parties, it merely means that the candidate is a preferred candidate with whom the company intends to negotiate the employment contract."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.