MOEL Interpretation

L-M Council Act

Grievance Handling


  •  
     Search
14 Records
14.❍ What are the purpose and objectives of the “grievance handling system,” as well as the procedures and methods for handling grievances, timing for submitting matters, and follow-up management?
13.❍ Must a grievance office be established and operated in the form of a meeting room or similar facility within the workplace, or can an online grievance center on the company’s website substitute for a physical grievance office?
12.❍ In our corporation, there are 161 branch offices nationwide (the vast majority of which employ 30 or more employees). Each branch manager only has authority over the division of tasks among branch employees. All decisions regarding employee transfers, promotions, wage determination, and working hours are handled by headquarters. Therefore, labor and management agreed to establish and operate a labor-management council at headquarters to handle nationwide matters, without establishing councils at individual branches. ❍ Considering that Article 4 of the Worker Participation and Cooperation Enhancement Act (WPEA) regulates the establishment of labor-management councils and serves as a premise for other provisions, can the term “all businesses or workplaces” in Article 26 of the Act be interpreted as “businesses or workplaces with authority to decide working conditions,” so that branches without such authority do not appoint grievance committee members and the headquarters’ grievance committee handles grievances from all branch employees, without violating Article 32 (penalties) of the Act?
11.❍ Our company has established a grievance committee to hear and handle employee grievances. From among the labor-management council members, one representative from labor and one from management are appointed as grievance committee members. The committee is tasked with handling grievances submitted verbally or in writing in consultation with the committee, and notifying the employee of the actions taken and results within 10 days of the submission. ❍ The company’s collective agreement differentiates union membership by position, job, and department, distinguishing between union and non-union employees. ❍ When a non-union employee submits a grievance in writing to the grievance committee, the employee-side grievance committee member has attempted to handle the grievance in consultation. However, the committee has delayed the consultation on the submitted grievance, claiming that the applicant is a non-union member. ❍ Since the labor-management council law distinguishes between employees and union members, and the grievance applicant is clearly a “worker” under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act, is it a violation of relevant regulations or laws to delay grievance consultation solely because the applicant is a non-union member?
10.❍ Our company has an established labor union. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Labor-Management Council Act, the company appointed one HR manager representing management and one union secretary representing labor as grievance committee members to hear and handle employee grievances. ❍ Although there are multiple grievance committee members (one from labor, one from management), there are no specific rules under the law or the company’s council regulations regarding division of duties among the grievance committee members. Therefore, when handling grievances from non-union executive employees, one grievance committee member has reviewed, judged, and notified the results individually. ❍ For example, a non-union executive, Mr. ○○○, requested grievance handling from a grievance committee member. The grievance was reviewed, judged, and the result notified by that single grievance committee member, following the company’s standard procedures and relationships. ❍ Question: When there are multiple grievance committee members, but no legal or council-regulation guidance on division of duties, is it lawful for a single grievance committee member to review, judge, and notify the resolution of a grievance submitted by a non-union executive employee in accordance with the company’s usual procedures?
9.Inquiry 1: Is there a legal obligation for grievance handling to be completed within the same year from the date of receipt? – For example, if a grievance regarding a desired transfer is resolved after two years, can it be considered a completed case? Inquiry 2: The grievance register must be preserved for three years—does this mean that grievance records remain “effective” for three years? – For example, if a grievance regarding a desired transfer is not resolved, must it be tracked and managed for three years until addressed? Inquiry 3: If an employee requests a transfer or personnel change, but the grievance cannot be resolved because it does not meet the company’s evaluation criteria, is the grievance listener obligated to communicate the reason for non-approval?
8.If a union chairperson who is not exempt from working hours requests the employer, as a grievance committee member under the Worker Participation Act, to visit workplaces for a certain period (3 months) to hear employees’ grievances: → Under Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Worker Participation Act, would recognizing this time as working hours—potentially paying more than the actual time spent or giving excessive wages relative to time—constitute an unfair labor practice? → How should the employer verify and recognize the actual time spent?
7.Grievance committee members are to consist of two members, one each from labor and management. Is it possible to require that female worker representatives must also serve as grievance committee members?
6.If it has been decided to operate grievance committee members on a rotation basis, can the employer change the members solely through unilateral notice?
5.Although the Worker Participation Act does not specify the scope of grievance handling, can council regulations explicitly define the scope of matters subject to grievance handling?
4.Under Article 32 of the Worker Participation Act, if the employer violates Article 12(1) by failing to hold regular labor-management council meetings or fails to appoint grievance committee members under Article 26, the employer may be fined up to 2 million KRW. When a vacancy occurs among grievance committee members, is a 30-day grace period allowed as under Enforcement Decree Article 4, or is the employer obligated to immediately elect a new grievance committee member?
3.Our employee-side grievance committee member recently received a grievance from an employee who had been disciplined, claiming that the disciplinary action and its content were unfair. After listening to the grievance, the employee-side committee member forwarded the matter to the employer-side grievance committee member and requested joint discussion. However, the employer-side committee member argued, “Disciplinary actions are final decisions of the company’s personnel committee and cannot be accepted as grievances.” We ask whether the Worker Participation Act imposes any limitations on the scope of grievance handling.
2.If the grievance submitted to the Grievance Committee concerns matters corresponding to the company’s internal audit department, can the labor-management council resolve a request to refer the matter to an external agency for investigation by a fair audit committee?
1.Question 1: When a vacancy occurs among grievance committee members, should a replacement be elected within a 30-day grace period like a by-election for employee representatives, or must it be done immediately? If a grievance committee vacancy is not filled, what actions can the administrative authorities take? Question 2: Can a grievance committee member be appointed from employees of a dispatched (subcontracted) workplace? Question 3: Do grievance committee members have a legal duty to maintain confidentiality?
<<  <  1  >  >>


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