3. Refusal of the right to collective bargaining


Article 81 (Unfair Labor Practices)
3. Refusal or delay in the execution of a collective agreement or other collective bargaining arrangement, without justifiable reason, with the representative of a labor union or with a person authorized by the labor union;


Refusal or delay of the execution of a collective agreement or other collective bargaining without justifiable reason with the representative of a labor union or person authorized by the labor union is considered unfair labor practice.



(1) Is it an unfair labor practice for the employer to refuse to engage in collective bargaining when the labor union has violated the collective agreement’s prohibition regarding non-delegation to a third party?

If the collective agreement contains an article that stipulates both labor and management shall not delegate their negotiation rights to a third party, both parties must follow this. In cases where the labor union violates the above article and delegates its bargaining rights to a third party(e.g., an umbrella labor union), the employer can request direct negotiations with its counterpart labor union. If this has caused a delay in collective bargaining, it is hard to deem it an unfair labor practice by the employer under the Act.

(2) Criteria for evaluating justifiable causes to refuse to engage in collective bargaining

In deciding whether there is a justifiable reason to refuse collective bargaining, consideration shall be given to the labor union’s positions, including the requested time and place, items and attitude, and shall be evaluated by the standards of whether the employer can implement such collective bargaining requests generally.

(3) Is it an unfair labor practice for the employer to refuse the labor union’s request for collective bargaining because of a structural change within the labor union and despite the current collective agreement still being effective?

In cases where the company-level labor union has been restructured to a branch union or a unit union of the industrial union association, the branch union or unit union still maintains organizational identity as the existing company-level labor union. This means the current collective agreement will continue to remain effective during this period. Therefore, labor and management shall not demand change or abolition of the current collective agreement during its term of validity.

(4) Is it justifiable for the labor union to demand collective bargaining over an objection to the reappointment of a university’s president or the resignation of its chief director?

The Trade Union Act does not stipulate clear rules regarding the object of collective bargaining, but its purpose is to negotiate conditions of employment. Therefore, the objective of collective bargaining shall be to negotiate matters within the employer’s range of authority, be related to the determination of conditions of employment, and be of a collective characteristic. Matters belonging to the employer’s personnel and management rights shall not be objects of collective bargaining in principle, but such matters which are closely related to working conditions can be the object of collective bargaining within a certain limit. Even in this case, such demands intrinsically infringing on the employer’s right of determination cannot justifiably be allowed.

(5) In cases where the labor union requests collective bargaining during the term of the current agreement regarding matters not addressed in the previous collective bargaining process, can the employer reject such a demand?

A collective agreement concluded legitimately by labor and management is a standard order regulating labor and management relations and shall be implemented in good faith by both labor and management during its effective period. It is a principle that both sides shall not demand change or abolition during the agreement’s effective period, unless there is a substantial change required.
Where the labor union requests renegotiation only because some matters were not addressed in the existing collective agreement, this demand violates the duty to maintain peace inherent in the collective agreement. In this case, although the employer rejects the labor union’s demand, this is a justifiable refusal.

(6) In cases where a person whose dismissal was legally confirmed demands collective bargaining with the assistance of a labor union representative, is it an unfair labor practice if the employer rejects his request for collective bargaining?

According to the proviso of subparagraph(D), Article 2(4) of the Trade Union Act, a dismissed employee who has applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair labor practices shall not be regarded as a non-employee until a review decision has been made by the National Labor Relations Commission. According to this question, the labor union representative was dismissed and then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair labor practices. If his application to the National Labor Relations Commission for a review decision is rejected, the dismissed labor union representative cannot be deemed an employee under the Trade Union Act from the time of the review decision and loses qualification as a labor union representative under Article 23 of the Trade Union Act. Even though qualification for labor union membership(according to the Constitution) is still maintained despite the provisions of the Trade Union Act, his dismissal shall not be interpreted differently.

(7) In the collective bargaining process for the renewal of a wage issue under the collective agreement, is it justifiable to demand collective bargaining about personnel matters already stipulated in the existing collective agreement?

The present Trade Union Act only regulates that the effective term for the collective agreement cannot exceed two years, but there are no other regulations regarding how to classify the issues for collective bargaining and how to negotiate each collective agreement. Accordingly, the parties to labor relations can engage in collective bargaining regarding wages and other issues, and separately conclude wage and other general agreements respectively stipulating different effective terms for each one. In these cases, both parties shall observe the contents of the collective agreements during each effective term, unless there are special circumstances that merit otherwise.
Because the effective term of the current collective agreement regarding general matters(other than wages) will remain for a considerable period, it is not justifiable for the labor union to request collective bargaining about other matters besides wages in the negotiating process to renew the wage agreement. Even if the employer insists on negotiating only wages from the labor union’s additional demands, it is not justifiable to consider this an unfair labor practice.

(8) When does an employer’s refusal or neglect to conduct collective negotiations amount to unfair labor practice?

An employer commits an unfair labor practice when he/she rejects or neglects to conduct collective negotiations without objective, justifiable reasons. Meanwhile, in order to determine whether the reasons are justifiable or not, it is necessary to take into consideration all relevant factors, such as the union negotiators, the time and place demanded by the union for negotiations, the issues subject to bargaining, and the employer’s behavior towards collective bargaining. If the result is that, from circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to expect him/her to sit at a negotiating table, the reason given by the employer will be regarded as justifiable.

4. Domination, interference, or support of operational expenses


Article 81 (Unfair Labor Practices)
4. Domination of or interference in the organization or operation of a labor union of workers, and the payment exceeding the limit of paid time off or financial support for union operations; Provided, that it may be justified when the employer allows workers to consult or bargain with him during working hours, and it shall be allowed as an exception that the employer contributes funds for the welfare of workers, or for the prevention and relief of economic or other misfortune, or that the employer provides a labor union with an office of minimum size.


[Types of Domination and Interference by the Employer]

① The employer refuses to allow a labor union to be established
② The employer recommends and seeks to persuade employees to join a company-controlled union
③ The employer establishes a subcontractor company and pushes the union members into the subcontractor company in an attempt to break up the union
④ The employer establishes an anti-union organization such as a non-union members’ organization
⑤ The employer pretends to shut down the company
⑥ The employer disturbs or monitors union members at union meetings
⑦ The employer orders a full-time officer of the union to return to a previous job
⑧ The employer attempts to bribe the union officers
⑨ The employer makes comments or opens a lecture with anti-union related content
⑩ The employer intentionally fails to deduct the union fees that have normally been deducted
⑪ The employer surveys the union members on union operations
⑫ The employer dismisses an employee upon request from a union officer



(1) Can the employer’s personal speeches be considered domination of or interference with the organization or operation of a labor union?

Domination or interference as an unfair labor practice under Article 81(4) of the Trade Union Act means the employer’s behavior infringes on the labor union’s independence in union activities. Whether the employer’s behavior is considered an unfair labor practice or not shall be decided based on a consideration of the situation and place where the behavior occurred, the contents and method, and influences on the labor union’s operation or activities, and whether the behavior was performed with the intent to dominate or interfere with the labor union’s organization or operation.
On the other hand, the employer himself/herself has freedom of speech to express his/her own opinion through speeches, letters, etc. according to Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, appropriate harmony is required to adjust the interests of the two opposing articles. Domination or interference is found in cases where the employer’s behavior(e.g., through speeches and letters) in relation to justifiable union establishment and operation are generally seen to infringe on the independence of the labor union through compulsion or coercion, suggestive or influencing behavior, etc. However, it is hard to treat it as unfair labor practice that the employer simply brings forth counter arguments to indicate or criticize its faults, and expresses his/her own opinions about the company’s conditions and progress of the collective bargaining process.

(2) Is it an unfair labor practice to unilaterally stop paying a full-time union officer’s wage?

Subparagraph(E) of Article 92(1) of the Trade Union Act stipulates that an employer who violates the part of a collective agreement to provide facilities and convenience will be fined 10 million won or less. Providing convenience in the above article refers to every behavior of the employer who promised to provide things necessary for union activities, and so the above article for payment of a full-time union officer’s wage shall be seen as one method of providing convenience to the labor union. Accordingly, if the employer does not implement it, despite the collective agreement stipulating provision of a full-time union officer’s wage, this is an unfair labor practice under subparagraph(E) of Article 92(1) of the Act.
On the other hand, an unfair labor practice means a behavior of the employer showing disregard for the union and which intends to obstruct union unity. If the employer has paid the full-time union officer’s wage according to the collective agreement but suddenly stops with the explicit and implied intension of weakening the activities of and unity within the labor union, then it is an unfair labor practice(domination and interference) under Article 81(4) of the Act. However, if the wage are stopped because of an unavoidable situation going on with the company, such as financial problems, but without the intent to engage in an unfair labor practice, then this violation can be considered non-fulfillment of the collective agreement, but not an unfair labor practice.

(3) When company executives induced the union members to oppose the work-to-rule action of the union, such an act is an unfair labor practice.

The president and managing director of the company in question had separate meetings with some union members to persuade them to work as usual instead of resorting to work-to-rule. The consequence was that some union members opposed the proposed work-to-rule and decided to work in the same way as usual. The company executives committed an unfair act of interference with the union operations.

(4) If an employer makes a speech before the employees in order to weaken union activities, this constitutes unfair labor practice.

The company president in question gave an address at the closing of the business year, saying that the union should not have come into being; that, in light of the organizational structure of the company, there were limitations on union activities; that he hoped the union would not be a further source of tension and dispute; and that he did not want to have to have every employee resign from the company and fill the vacancies with new employees. It was quite clear that his address was intended to confirm his opposition to the union and weaken it. Making such an address is an act of unfair labor practice.

(5) When, as a result of strong demands and actions by the union, full-time union officials and union executives have come to receive wage from the employer, such wage payment by the employer is not an act of unfair labor practice.

Unless there is a high likelihood that such wage payment will jeopardize independence of the union, simply paying wage to full-time union officials is not an unfair labor practice. In addition, considering that such wage payment is a result of the union’s strong demands and actions, it does not seem a likely threat to the union’s independence and autonomy.

(6) Perpetrator of unfair labor practice

In cases where a person supervises and manages the employees substantially regarding basic working conditions, just like their real employer having authority over and responsibility for the employees he/she has hired, if such person dominates or intervenes in the labor union’s organization or operations in a way that falls under Paragraph 4 of Article 81 of the Trade Union Act, that person shall be deemed the employer who must follow any order for correction of such actions, and shall be considered to have an equivalent position to an employer. Accordingly, if a primary contractor supervises subcontractor employees or determines their basic working conditions through a separate employment contract, and if that primary contractor cancels the contract with the subcontractor company to discourage or infringe upon the activities of the subcontractor’s labor union, said contractor would be deemed the perpetrator of unfair labor practice and would need to carry out any correction order according to Paragraph 4 of Article 81 of the Trade Union Act.