LABOR CASES

Collective Bargaining and Collective Agreement

An Evaluation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between a Janitors’ Labor Union and their University Employer


I. Introduction (Summary)

On May 27, 2014, a signing ceremony was held for a collective bargaining agreement between a certain university (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) and the University janitors’ labor union (hereinafter referred to as “the Labor Union”). As representatives of both the Labor Union and the University management signed the collective agreement, it marked an end to the labor disputes that had continued for more than a year and established a new employment relationship. In this article, I would like to review the content of the collective agreement, and the reasons why it took such a long time, in the anticipation of some lessons against making the same mistakes in the next collective bargaining sessions.
In July 2013 when the University had difficulty negotiating with the newly established Labor Union, it gave this labor attorney authority to negotiate on its behalf. The University janitorial staff were employed as regular employees from an outsourcing company on March 1, 2013. The University and the Labor Union began collective bargaining at the time, but this devolved into labor disputes that involved the Labor Commission until May, 2013. The University explained to this labor attorney that since there were no items the two parties could agree on, I could start the collective bargaining from the beginning. After drafting and obtaining University approval for a counter-proposal to the Labor Union’s collective agreement proposal (80 articles), I was ready for collective bargaining.
The two parties’ negotiating teams began their bargaining sessions on July 16, 2013. The Labor Union’s negotiating team was composed of seven persons: two union officers from the umbrella union (the Seoul and Gyeonggi branch of the Korean Public & Social Services and Translation Workers’ Union), three union officers from the janitor’s union, and two observers from the building management team (outsourced workers at that time). The University negotiating team consisted of three persons: this labor attorney as the chief negotiator, a team leader in charge of general affairs, and the staff member responsible for managing the cleaning services on campus. During the first negotiating session, when the University team submitted the counter-proposal to the Labor Union, the Labor Union showed in the collective bargaining minutes that the previous University bargaining representative had already agreed to 50 of the 80 items. The previous University representative who was in charge of cleaning services explained that he had just signed the meeting minutes without approval from his superiors as the Labor Union had assured him that the meeting minutes could change at a later time. This labor attorney then told the Labor Union that the meeting minutes that the previous University representative had signed were of agreements that the University could never accept, and any agreements made were mistakes by the staff member who had signed the minutes. I then requested that the meeting minutes be officially determined as void.
For this action, the Labor Union filed a complaint with the Labor Office against the University president, the general manager, a team leader in charge of general affairs, and the new chief negotiator (this labor attorney) for unfair labor practice in early August 2013. The Labor Union took several actions in protest including a press conference, a one-person picket of City Hall, a regular Wednesday sit-in protest at the University headquarters, and a slowdown of cleaning services. The chief Union negotiator took to tearing up the University’s counter-proposal at the bargaining table, and throwing his hot coffee at the team leader in charge of general affairs for being late to one of the collective bargaining sessions.
In November, after investigation, the Labor Office found there to be no evidence of unfair labor practice by the University declaring the two meeting minutes void, and threw out the Labor Union’s complaint. After this, the Labor Union demanded that there be no discrimination between the university labor unions, and that the University should allow this Labor Union’s activities as it allowed other unions their activities. The University accepted some of the Labor Union’s demands, and both parties managed to reach agreement on 20 items, including union activities.
In February 2014, major disputes moved on to job security, protection of union activities, and allowance of paid time off for one full-time union officer. In terms of job security, the Labor Union demanded extension of the retirement age to 70 (instead of the current 65 years of age), in light of over 20 union members expecting to have to retire at the end of the year if this was not done. When the University rejected the demand to extend retirement age to 70, the Labor Union began taking action on February 29, 2014, hanging up approximately 30 banners around the campus, and setting up a tent at a building near the main gate to engage in a sit-in strike at the tent.
By April 1, 2014, the number of union members had dropped to just half of the total janitorial staff. In this worsening situation, the Labor Union had to withdraw their demand for extension of the retirement age to 70, and instead accepted that the University would work to protect job security. As the Labor Union could not perform union activities for a long time without a collective agreement, it seems to have decided that the next best alternative was to accept realistic measures. The Labor Union then suggested to the University that a working level negotiating team be formed to draw up a collective agreement as soon as possible, which the University accepted. This working-level team consisted of three members of the Labor Union and three University representatives. The working level negotiating teams reached agreement on all remaining items and finalized the collective agreement.


II. Rejection of Meeting Minutes & Unfair Labor Practice

When a labor union was established for the janitorial workers and demanded a collective agreement, the University appointed the staff member in charge of cleaning services as its collective bargaining representative. This particular staff member had no experience negotiating with labor unions before, and as the Labor Union repeatedly asked him to sign the meeting minutes, he did so simply to confirm that he had negotiated with the Labor Union. When this labor attorney, in preparations for collective bargaining, reviewed the contents of the signed meeting minutes, there were many articles that the University must not accept in any situation. Some examples:
“Anyone engaging in unfair labor practice as defined in Article 81 of the Labor Union Act shall be subject to disciplinary action.”
“The Disciplinary Action Committee shall consist of 4 representatives from the Labor Union and 4 from the University. Half or more of the Disciplinary Action Committee shall be present, and consent from a majority of those present is required before disciplinary action can be taken.”
The University also disagreed with such requirements as it needing approval from the Labor Union when handling many different personnel issues.
For these reasons, the University could not accept the meeting minutes. In addition to filing a complaint against all negotiating team members of the University including the University president for unfair labor practice, the Labor Union also demanded the replacement of this labor attorney as University negotiating team representative.
The Labor Union delayed collective bargaining until the Labor Office determined there was insufficient evidence of unfair labor practice by the University, and dismi

For further questions, please
call (+82) 2-539-0098 or email bongsoo@k-labor.com

    • 맨앞으로
    • 앞으로
    • 다음
    • 맨뒤로