hankyoreh

The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) holds a press conference demanding South Korea’s adoption of International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions on Apr. 16 in Seoul. (Yonhap News)

The International Labour Organization (ILO) reiterated its insistence that the South Korean government adopt legal measures to guarantee freedom of association for unemployed and dismissed workers. It also stated the opinion that excessively specific legal stipulations regarding matters such as conditions on labor union officials entering workplaces could be regarded as constituting excessive interference.

The message, which relates to areas viewed by some as “inadequate” in amendments to the Trade Union Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act sponsored by the ruling Democratic Party based on discussions by the Economic, Social and Labor Council (ESLC), has observers watching to see how much it is reflected in discussions of the legislation.

In separate press releases on Apr. 16, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) shared a letter from ILO International Labour Standards Department Director Corinne Vargha containing “practical advice.” The letter was a response to questions submitted by the two federations on Mar. 20 regarding whether the issues surrounding the ruling party’s amendments conformed to the principles of freedom of association. Sponsored by Democratic Party lawmaker and ruling party Environment and Labor Committee Secretary Han Jeoung-ae based on an agreement by the ESLC’s public interest members, the bills are effectively ruling party legislation – which the two federations have criticized for failing to meet ILO standards regarding freedom of association.

Representative examples concern freedom of association for unemployed persons, dismissed workers, and job seekers. The ILO has recommended the abolition of current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provisions denying union member recognition to said individuals (Article 2-4) and restricting the right of non-union members to run for executive positions (Article 23-1). The amendment would extend recognition of their union member status with the deletion of a provision stating that “in cases where an organization falls into one of the following categories [allowing the membership of non-workers], it shall not be regarded as a trade union.”

But the restriction on eligibility for executive union positions would remain in place. While the amendment includes a provision stating that “executive eligibility is to be determined by regulations,” it also adds the proviso that “workplace union executives must be elected from among the union members employed at that workplace.” The ESLC public interest members explained that the move was made “in consideration of the role and importance of union officials at different companies.” The problem is that it restricts union activities by unemployed persons, dismissed workers, and job seekers. The ILO reiterated its message that administrative authorities should refrain from restricting or interfering with worker groups exercising the right to choose their own representatives.

The amendment also included a new provision (Article 5-3) requiring employers to be “notified of the purpose, dates, locations, and participants when union members who are not employed at the workplace engage in union activities.” The ILO expressed concerns about this, noting its previous position that the methods through which worker groups exercise their right to associate is a matter for agreement between employers and workers and suggesting that the stipulation of excessively detailed conditions on union activity in the laws could be construed as excessive interference on the essential autonomy of labor-management bargaining.

“The gist is that there should be prior discussions because of possible issues concerning business secrets and company knowledge,” explained Han Jeoung-ae, adding that a “provision was included stating that employers cannot refuse this without reasonable grounds for doing so.”

The practical advice did not constitute a conclusion based on the ILO’s interpretation of whether the specific amendment content conflicts with the organization’s principles. But it was a reiteration of the “global standard” for labor rights, based on reviews of similar past cases by the ILO’s oversight body.

“The ILO’s future interpretation is a matter closely tied to a potential FTA dispute with the EU, so amendment of the law according to these principles should be discussed,” said Ryu Mi-gyeong, director of KCTU’s international bureau.

By Cho Hye-jeong, staff reporter

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]