The current Trade Union Act not only considers civil and criminal misbehavior as unjustifiable labor union activities but also prohibits unfavorable treatment of employees (such as dismissal) for justifiable union activities.
However, if union activities take place during working hours or within the company premises, then disputes may arise concerning the employer's right to supervise or manage labor and facilities.
The scope of labor union activities, which are under protection of the Trade Union Act, is not specified by law, but suggested by judicial rulings as follows Supreme Court ruling on Apr. 10, 1992, 91Do3044.

- First, the behavior must be seen as an activity on behalf of the labor union or to obtain implied authority or approval for the labor union (Characteristic).
- Second, the behavior must be necessary to maintain and improve the employees’ working conditions and to enhance their economic and social status, and must assist in enforcing employee unity (Purpose).
- Third, the activity must be outside working hours, except for special provisions granting permission to the contrary in the Rules of Employment or Collective Agreement, or except for repeated labor practice or the employer’s consent (Time).
- Fourth, union activities inside the workplace shall follow reasonable conditions based upon the employer’s right to manage the facility and the activities must not involve violence to persons or property (Method).
These criteria shall be the standards for labor union activities if there are no specified rules in the Collective Agreement or if there are disputes on interpretation of the agreement. In order to prevent such conflicts, it is advisable to stipulate concretely, in the Collective Agreement, the admitted scope of labor union activities and procedures during working hours or within company premises.
In principle, union activities shall be arranged outside working hours so as to cause no disturbance in the company's regular work. Otherwise, union activities shall be approved by the employer, unless there is special approval through Collective Agreement, etc. Specific regulations in the Collective Agreement are highly recommended.


1. Internal Activities of a Labor Union

(1) It is not justifiable to prohibit a former union member from rejoining the union. MOEL Guidelines: Nojo 68107-452, on May22,2002.

① To qualify for union membership, union members shall be the employees stipulated under Item 1 of Article 2 of the Labor Union Act, shall not fall under Item 4(a) of Article 2 of the Act, which states the ‘status of an employer or a person representing the interests of the employer,’ and shall be determined autonomously by the labor union’s bylaws.

② According to Article 5 of the Labor Union Act, employees shall be free to join a labor union or leave it. The joining procedures shall be stipulated in the bylaws of the labor union concerned. In cases where a labor union organizing a particular company’s employees rejects membership applications or obstructs union membership by delaying procedures (e.g., requiring the approval of the labor union chairman), the principle is to interpret their membership as having been recognized as fully qualified member of the union.

(2) A labor union is free to join or withdraw from an associated organization of labor unions. Supreme Court ruling on Dec. 22,1992, 91Nu6726.


Just as a qualified employee can organize, join or depart from a labor union on his/her own volition, a union is also free to join or withdraw from an associated organization as long as such decision is made in an independent and democratic way.

(3) It is null and void if a bylaw or election management rule stipulates indirect selection methods in order to prohibit labor union members from selecting delegates directly. Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 14,2000, 97Da41349.


Article 17 of the Labor Union Act regulates that delegates in the Council of Delegates, on behalf of the General Assembly, the highest decision-making body, shall be elected by direct, secret, and unsigned ballot. The purpose of this guide is to let the union members be engaged in decision-making about the organization and operations of the labor union and to promote democracy inside the labor union, namely, democratic characteristics. Accordingly, it is null and void if a bylaw or election management rule stipulates an indirect selection method and prohibits labor union members from selecting delegates directly, except in special situations.

(4) Criteria to determine whether a union activity is justifiable or not. Supreme Court ruling on Apr. 11, 1992, 91Do3044.


A union activity is justifiable when it is reasonably regarded as an activity of the union or is authorized or approved, explicitly or implicitly, by the union; it is aimed at maintaining or improving working conditions, promoting the economic and social status of employees and bringing the employees closer to one another; it is done outside of working hours, except when the collective agreement otherwise prescribes or the employer has approved union activities during working hours; and, if it is conducted within the premises of the company, it complies with the rules and restrictions based on the employer's right to control the facilities at the workplace and is not an act of violence or destruction.
(5) If some of a union's members are against a certain decision or policy of the union, the activity performed to express such opposition is not a union activity. Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 25, 1992, 92Da18542.


If certain union members did not accept the decision or policy of the union and, to express such opposition, took an action, for example, by handing out printed matters criticizing the decision or policy, such action is arbitrarily initiated by those union members, and not taken under the agreement of the union members. Accordingly, such action is not seen as a union activity, except when there is a particular reason to regard it as either being essential to the union activities or having been approved by the union itself.

(6) If some of a union's members are against a certain decision or policy of the union, the activity performed to express such opposition is not a union activity Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 25, 1992, 92Da18542.


If certain union members did not accept the decision or policy of the union and, to express such opposition, took an action, for example, by handing out printed matters criticizing the decision or policy, such action is arbitrarily initiated by those union members, and not taken under the agreement of the union members. Accordingly, such action is not seen as a union activity, except when there is a particular reason to regard it as either being essential to the union activities or having been approved by the union itself.

2. External Activities of a Labor Union

(1) Protection of the Employer's Right for Order within the Company

① A labor union officer had been wearing a vest decorated with union propaganda. Although the company had warned him several times that he would be punished according to company regulations if he continued to wear the vest during working hours, he disregarded the warnings. Therefore, the company decided to discipline him by suspending him from office for two months. That is not unfair labor practice. National Labor Relations Commission 2001Buno32, on July.15.2001.


② Although a behavior is partly related to union activities, if the disciplinary dismissal was for a reason stipulated clearly in the Rules of Employment, then the dismissal is not an unfair dismissal. Supreme Court ruling on Aug. 10,1990, 89Nu8217.


③ Where the company dismissed an employee due to his anti-government agitation, promotion of mutual distrust, lying on a resume, etc., if the company’s dismissal was not in retaliation for his union activities, but to take disciplinary measures against the harm to company order, then this is not an unfair labor practice. National Labor Relations Commission 90Buno251, on Feb.18,1991.


④ Despite an employee’s status as a labor union officer, so long as there is no evidence that the company took disciplinary action on account of its dislike for the union, then the action cannot be said to be an unfair labor practice. National Labor Relations Commission 2000Buno35, on June.12,2000.


⑤ If disciplinary dismissal for an illegal industrial action and an employee’s contempt for the representative director was justifiable and not nominal, then it is not regarded as an unfair labor practice. Administrative court ruling on Oct5,2000, 99Gu35764.


(2) Labor union activities

① If a union member does not follow the union’s decisions, as determined by the decision-making process of the labor union, or if the union member opposes or criticizes a labor union decision or policy, the behavior is considered voluntary and a purely personal activity, and is not considered union activity. Supreme Court ruling on Sep. 25, 1992, 92Da18542.


② Running for a position as a union delegate is clearly engaging in union activity. Furthermore, applying to the Ministry of Labor for unpaid allowances such as bathing allowance and reserve army training allowance pursuant to the Rules of Employment shall be considered union behavior if the purpose is to improve the employees’ working conditions and enhance their economic and social status, which can be interpreted as behavior to obtain the implied authority or approval of the labor union. This is justifiable and permissible union activity. Supreme Court ruling on Aug. 10,1990, 89Nu8217.

③ Even though it is company policy to require the company’s prior approval or permission to distribute a handout, this requirement cannot prohibit every union activity including justifiable activities to maintain and improve working conditions. Whether such activity is justifiable shall not only be judged by the company’s position but also other factors, such as the handout’s contents, number of pages, time and method of distribution, effect on the company or the work, etc. Supreme Court ruling on Dec. 23, 1997, 96Nu11778.


④ Distribution of handouts during non-working recess hours is permissible even if the union member did not obtain prior permission, unless the distribution negatively affects other employees’ work, obstructs free use of their recess hours, or concretely corrupts order within the corporation. Although the handout distributed by a union member is designed to promote working conditions, if its content creates extreme distrust or hatred toward management and endangers public morals by distorting or exaggerating conditions, the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee for disciplinary reasons is justifiable and not an unfair labor practice. Supreme Court ruling on Feb. 9, 1993, 92Da20880.


⑤ If some contents stipulated in the handout damage the character, honor, reputation, etc. of other employees or some parts of the document are falsified, exaggerated or distorted, then if the purpose of distributing the handout was not to infringe on other employee’s rights or interests, but to maintain and improve working conditions, to promote employee welfare, and to enhance their economic and social status, and if the content of the handout was true as a whole, the distribution of the employee’s handout is a justifiable union activity. Supreme Court ruling on May 22, 1998, 98Da2365.


⑥ A distributed handout contained contents slandering the company, and may have caused hostile feelings against the company. It was not handed out directly to the employees but was spread over the employer’s plant in secret. Even though it was distributed during the labor union’s election campaign of delegates, this handout may have brought concrete danger by infringing on the employer’s right to manage his facility and violated corporate order, so it is not justifiable. Supreme Court ruling on Jun. 23, 1992, 92Nu4253.


⑦ The company stipulated in its Rules of Employment that handouts distributed inside the workplace shall obtain the employer’s prior approval and the company may take disciplinary action against an employee who violates this rule. The rule is be invalid simply because it might violate the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech. Supreme Court ruling on Sep. 30, 1994, 94Da4042.


⑧ Although a labor dispute was resolved, the company’s operation returned to normal, and the union repeatedly urged a union member to come back to his job, he did not return to his driving job for an extended period because he was still participating in labor union activities and trying to disrupt the operations of the company. If the company dismissed him for the above reason, this decision is hard to categorize as an unfair labor practice taken to retaliate against his union activities (such as participating in previous strikes). Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 23, 1990, 89Nu4666.


⑨ In cases where the labor union in a company with a day and night shift has to hold a general meeting to discuss the pros and cons of an industrial action, and informs the employer of the general meeting, although the general meeting is held during working hours, it is permissible union activity. Supreme Court ruling on Feb. 22, 1994, 93Do613.


(3) Position and activities of a labor union officer

① When an employee received a personnel order to change jobs or transfer to another department under the employer’s rightful authority, the employee was absent from work for over 20 days and disobeyed the personnel order, concluding that the company was retaliating against him for his demands for improved working conditions. Since the behavior was a severe violation, the termination of his labor contract was justifiable.

② A labor union's full-time officer basically maintains labor relations with the employer, keeping his status as an employee, but he is considered suspended from duty and exempt from his work obligations. On the other hand, as the employer implements a training program during working hours, and the employees are obligated to attend, such occasion is like providing work to the company. Unless there is a special provision in the Collective Agreement stating otherwise, it is difficult to treat participation in the training as wrong. Supreme Court ruling on Nov. 23, 1999, 99Da45246.


③ When a union member was absent because he was campaigning for election as a labor union delegate, this is not a justifiable reason for absence from work and therefore is cause for dismissal by the company. Supreme Court ruling on Feb. 11, 1992, 91Da5976.


(4) Dissolution of a Labor Union

A labor union shall be dissolved in any of the following cases: Article 28 of the Labor Union Act

① Occurrence of any of the causes for dissolution prescribed in its bylaws;
② Merger or division of the business concerned;
③ Resolution made to do so at a general meeting or by the council of delegates; or
④ Decision by the competent authority to do so upon resolution of the Labor Relations Commission, when the union has no executive officials and has not carried out any union activity for 1 year or longer. It is deemed that a labor union has not carried out any union activity for 1 year or longer when it has not collected any membership dues from its member employees or has not called any general meeting or a meeting of delegates for 1 year or longer.


IV. Prohibition Against Payment of Wages to Full-Time Union Officers and the Exception: Paid Time-Off System Bongsoo Jung, “Prohibition Against Payment of Wages to Full-Time Union Officers”, 「Labor Law 」, July 2010, Joongangkyungjae: The contents have been updated since then.


1. Overview
According to the Trade Union Act, when an employer subsidizes wages to full-time union officers engaged in duties only for the labor union, this is considered to be unfair labor practice by the employer, and the employer shall be subject to a punishment of up to two years in prison or a fine of 20 million won. Since the time this provision was added to the Trade Union Act in 1997, implementation has been delayed several times, but starting July 1, 2010, it finally went into effect upon revision of the Trade Union Act on December 31, 2009. This revision, however, allows a minimal number of paid full-time union officers by introducing paid time-off for some union activities. The paid time-off can allow for full-time union officers within a maximum number of hours when the labor union and the employer agree on paid time-off. The employer shall not subsidize wages for full-time union officers in cases where there is no agreement between both parties. In May 2010 and June 2013, the Ministry of Employment and Labor announced the maximum number of paid time-off hours as decided by the Union Activity Review Commission. The following explains the revision of the Act concerning the prohibition against payment of wages to full-time union officers, and application of the revision, based on guidelines from the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

2. Prohibition Against Payment of Wages to Full-Time Union Officers

(1) Prior to revision of the law


Trade Union Act, Article 24 (Full-Time Officer of a Labor Union)
② Those who are engaged in duties only for labor unions in accordance with paragraph (1) shall not be remunerated in any way by employers for the duration of their tenure.
Article 81 (Unfair Labor Practices) 4. Payment of wages for full-time officers of a labor union or financial support for the operation of a labor union.
Addenda, Article 6 (Exceptions to Full-Time Officers of a Labor Union)
① The provisions of Articles 24 (2) and Article 81 (4) (limited to the provisions concerning payment of wages for full-time officers of a labor union) shall not apply until December 31, 2009.


(2) Implementation of the Act (Revised January 1, 2010)

The prohibition against payment of wages to full-time union officers is to be implemented on July 1, 2010. Exceptions will be made when a labor union has already stipulated a wage subsidy for its full-time union officers in the collective agreement before the Trade Union Act was revised. In such cases, the wage subsidy will be allowed for the effective period of the collective agreement, up to 2 years.

This newly revised Act introduced a ‘paid time-off system’ by tripartite agreement of union, management, and the government. This stipulates that the company can provide a minimal number of paid time-off hours for union activities, even though a wage subsidy for full-time union officers is prohibited. It is regarded as work-provision when labor union officers are engaged in collaborative activities with the company such as collective bargaining or consultation, grievance-handling, industrial safety issues, etc. and labor union maintenance/management tasks designed to promote good relations between labor and management. To determine the maximum number of paid time-off hours and the items considered as paid time-off, a Union Activity Review Commission (UARC) was composed under jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The UARC consisted of 15 representatives: 5 recommended by labor, 5 by management, and 5 public committee representatives recommended by the government.

3. Paid Time-Off System as an Exception to the Wage Subsidy Prohibition

The Union Activity Review Commission (UARC) determined the maximum number of paid time-off hours at a conference attended by labor, management and public committee representatives in June 2013, which was announced by the Ministry of Employment and Labor and is implemented from July 1, 2013. Wage subsidies for full-time union officers are prohibited, but if the collective agreement stipulates such subsidy, activities for which full-time union officers receive a subsidy from the employer are allowed within the maximum number of paid time-off hours regulated by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. If there is no such stipulation in the collective agreement, full-time union officers’ activities shall not be subsidized financially in principle.


Number of Union Members
Maximum Paid Time-Off Hours (Full-Time Union Officers)
Maximum Number of
Part-Time Union Officers
Fewer than 100
Up to 2,000 hours (1)
○ Companies with fewer than 300 union members: in cases where paid time-off is split between part-time officers, the number of part-time union officers shall not exceed three times the number in parentheses.
○ Companies with 300 union members or more: in cases where paid time-off is split between part-time officers, the number of part-time union officers shall not exceed two times the number in parentheses.
100 ~ 199
Up to 3,000 hours (1.5)
200 ~ 299
Up to 4,000 hours (2)
300 ~ 499
Up to 5,000 hours (2.5)
500 ~ 999
Up to 6,000 hours (3)
1,000 ~ 2,999
Up to 10,000 hours (5)
3,000 ~ 4,999
Up to 14,000 hours (7)
5,000 ~ 9,999
Up to 22,000 hours (11)
10,000 ~ 14,999
Up to 28,000 hours (14)
15,000 or more
Up to 36,000 hours (18)


1) “Number of Union Members” refers to the total number of union members at an identical business or workplace.

2) 2,000 Time-Off Hours required to maintain one full-time union officer (considering ⓐ 2,088 hours = 40 hours per week x 52 weeks + 8 hours; ⓑ annual leave)

3) Implementation: The above shall enter into force as of July 1, 2013. In cases where the company has a collective agreement effective July 1, 2013, the above is applied from the day after the current collective agreement’s effective period expires.

4. Application of Paid Time-Off

(1) Question) Three full-time union officers are allowed for a workplace with 500 union members according to the maximum number of paid full-time union officers determined by the Union Activity Review Commission (UARC). Can a labor union that has two full-time union officers go on strike to demand one more full-time union officer?
Answer) If a labor union goes on strike to acquire more full-time union officers than the maximum allowed according to the paid time-off table, this is illegal. Industrial action is only permitted when demands are related to the improvement of working conditions like wages, working hours and allowances. That is, going on strike is only allowed for demands related to a dispute of interests (normative items). However, if the labor union goes on strike to demand things such as more full-time union officers, payment for union activities during working hours and other contractual issues (a rights dispute), such industrial action is illegal. It is illegal for a labor union to go on strike to demand paid union hours in addition to those stipulated by the paid time-off guidelines in the Trade Union Act.

(2) Question) When an employer refuses demands from a labor union, does the labor union have to accept the refusal?
Answer) No, it doesn’t. When the labor union goes on strike over a demand for a wage increase, demanding more paid time-off for full-time union officers as part of its industrial action may be justifiable.

(3) Question) Paid time-off is only applicable to full-time union officers engaged in union activities. That is, union activities covered by this paid time-off are Trade Union Act-related collective bargaining, consultation, industrial safety issues, grievance-handling, and labor union maintenance/management tasks designed to promote good relations between labor and management. Considering this, will the following be regarded as paid hours: additional labor-management meetings regulated by the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the Act concerning the Promotion of Worker Participation and Cooperation (Labor-Management Council Act), and the Labor Standards Act, as well as the Trade Union Act?
Answer) Paid time-off is only applicable to full-time labor union officers engaged in union activities according to the Trade Union Act. However, activities in additional meetings regulated by the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the Labor Management Council Act and the Labor Standards Act can be regarded as paid hours.

(4) Question) If the labor union and the company collaborate to increase the number of paid hours, is it possible to increase the number of paid full-time union officers limited by the maximum time-off?
Answer) Since full-time union officers, for which paid time-off applies under the Trade Union Act, are carrying out activities related to industrial safety, collective bargaining, consultation, and grievance-handling, a limited number of additional employees would be necessary in order to participate in Labor-Management meetings. If the company considers all or part of the work done by employees in grievance-handling as time-off, thus exceeding the stipulated maximum time-off, this is unfair labor practice by the employer, and the employer would be punished for it. The Ministry of Employment and Labor plans to carefully inspect workplaces to prevent any unfair labor practices from now on, and will visit companies to see whether Workplace Improvement Committees, Industrial Safety and Health Committee, and Labor-Management Councils (required by the Labor-Management Council Act, the Labor Standards Act, and the Industrial Safety and Health Act) are being operated properly and in ways appropriate to their purposes.

(5) Question) The maximum number of full-time union officers is 18 for Hyundai Motors Company (HMC), which has 45,000 employees. Can the number of full-time union officers be increased when Labor-Management meetings are constituted continuously according to the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the Labor-Management Council Act, and the Labor Standards Act?
Answer) From time to time, the number of part-time union officers can increase whenever necessary. However, such numbers will not be equal to the numbers common today. It is a fact that there are many full-time union officers without specified duties who participate in these Labor-Management meetings on a regular basis.

(6) Question) Is participation by ordinary union members in a general meeting paid or unpaid when during working hours?
Answer) This is what the labor union and the company need to decide as a policy. It is not simple to determine all such meetings as unpaid. And on the other hand, even though a company allows all time spent in general meetings as paid time-off, it is not always fair to simply punish the employer.

(7) Question) Is a wage subsidy ordinary wages or average wages for a full-time union officer?
Answer) This would be determined by agreement between labor and management at the workplace involved. Consideration of wage subsidies as average wages would apply for companies like HMC that have previously considered wage subsidies as average wages for their full-time union officers. If the full-time union officer receives an overtime allowance and holiday work allowance, those to whom the paid time-off system applied in the past, shall have it applied as before. If the Ministry of Labor interrupts the payment criteria of private companies, this would cause more disputes between labor unions and employers.

(8) Question) Labor union chairmen have frequently been provided a car and driver. Under the current paid time-off system, is it acceptable for the company to provide such things?
Answer) According to the paid time-off system a company would be punished for unfair labor practice if it provides a car and driver to any of its full-time union officers.

(9) Question) Is it acceptable for the labor union and the company to simply stipulate paid time-off hours in the collective agreement, without stipulating the number of full-time union officers?
Answer) According to the Trade Union Act, paid time-off hours and the union personnel who can use them can be stipulated in the collective agreement. If so, the labor union and the company together shall determine the maximum number of paid time-off hours and the union members who can use them. As an example, if labor and management in a workplace with 350 union members (with a maximum of 5,000 paid time-off hours) agree on 4,000 hours of paid time-off, ‘4,000 hours of paid time-off: two full-time union officers’ (or one full-time union officer and two part-time union officers) shall be stipulated in the collective agreement. For a concrete list of full or part-time union officers, the labor union shall also notify the company ahead of any union activities.