[Decision] Verbal Notice of Employment Refusal After Four Days of Training Deemed "Unfair Dismissal"

Court: Employment Relationship Established
Training Period Should Be Considered as Employment, Not Just Evaluation

The court has ruled that it is unfair to dismiss a probationary employee, who received training and worked for four days at four hours each, through a phone call. On September 5, the Administrative Division 1 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Yang Sangyun) ruled against Company A in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission's decision to grant relief for unfair dismissal (2024GuHap82817).

Photo to aid article understanding. Pixabay.

[Facts]

Company A is a corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail of medical devices, medical supplies, and hygiene products. It operates its headquarters in Ulju County, Ulsan, as well as two branches: one at Ulsan University Hospital in Dong-gu, Ulsan, and another at Jungang Hospital in Nam-gu, Ulsan.

Mr. B received training and worked at the Ulsan University Hospital branch in Dong-gu, Ulsan, from October 23, 2023, to October 30, 2023. On October 31, 2023, Company A verbally informed Mr. B via telephone that it would not proceed with an employment contract. Mr. B filed for relief for unfair dismissal with the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the claim was upheld. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission stated that the business in question employed at least five regular workers and that there was no justifiable reason for dismissal according to social norms. The Commission also found that the company failed to follow proper dismissal procedures, constituting unfair dismissal.

Company A appealed this decision to the Central Labor Relations Commission, but the appeal was dismissed for the same reasons as those given by the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission.

Company A then filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission's decision, arguing that the branch in question employed fewer than five regular workers and was therefore not subject to the Labor Standards Act, and that the employee in question did not qualify as a probationary worker. The company also claimed there was a justifiable reason for refusing to hire.

[Court Ruling]

The Seoul Administrative Court dismissed Company A’s claim. Regarding the number of regular employees, Company A argued that it was a "business with fewer than five employees," but the court found that "the headquarters and the branch in question were operated by a single corporation," and that "the headquarters and branch shared a single set of articles of incorporation and could not be considered to make independent decisions." The court further noted, "The CEO of the headquarters and the branch manager are the same person," and that "Mr. B was interviewed and consulted directly by this representative." Thus, the court interpreted the headquarters and branches as being organically managed as a single business entity.

Regarding the claim that "Mr. B was not a probationary worker," the court found that an implicit probationary employment contract had been established. The court stated, "Mr. B received training for four days, four hours each day, including learning about product usage and location in the store, as well as customer service methods," and "the training content matched the job description listed in the company’s recruitment notice." The court continued, "The plaintiff paid Mr. B four days’ wages as salary on November 1, 2023," and concluded, "It is reasonable to view Mr. B’s training period not merely as an evaluation phase, but as a period of employment during which he was compensated and received work-related training."

Finally, regarding whether there was a justifiable reason for refusing employment, the court stated, "The refusal was based solely on the four-day, four-hour-per-day training period," and "this not only betrays Mr. B’s trust, but also cannot be considered sufficient evaluation or training to assess the employee’s professional skills or job suitability." The court added, "Given that the total period of work was only four days, amounting to 16 hours, there was ample opportunity for improvement," and "the plaintiff’s claim of insufficient work capability is difficult to accept."

Regarding the allegation of false academic credentials, the court found, "C High School was renamed D High School when it was converted to a general high school on March 1, 2007," and "Mr. B merely listed the current name of the school," concluding that this could not be considered a false entry.

Reporter Song Juhee, The Law Times

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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