CMNT_TITLE

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Republic of Korea (RATIFICATION: 1992)

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Government’s reply thereto, both received with the Government’s report on 4 September 2014.

Articles 10, 16 and 17 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and inspection visits. The Committee previously noted the FKTU’s comment on the scarcity of inspection personnel, indicating that, at the current rate of inspection, it would take approximately 50 years to inspect all workplaces.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is a shortage of labour inspectors despite its consistent efforts to increase their number, and that it will continue to make efforts to increase this number. In this regard, the Government indicates that in 2012, there were 1,687,476 workplaces subject to inspection, and 1,359 labour inspectors. The Government indicates that it undertakes inspections based on the type of business and the size of the workplace to maximize the effectiveness of inspections. Intensive inspections are conducted in construction and other vulnerable industries or small-sized workplaces employing large numbers of adolescents, women or foreign workers to ensure that the employees of workplaces with poor working conditions are covered. For occupational safety and health, inspections are focused on workplaces with poor safety and health management or those at high risk of accidents, including workplaces where an industrial accident has taken place, workplaces with high accident rates or workplaces in sectors where accidents occur frequently. The Committee notes that, in 2013, 22,245 workplaces were inspected concerning the Labour Standards Act, 90 per cent of which were found to have violated labour laws. With regard to occupational safety and health, 82 per cent of the 18,812 workplaces inspected were found to be in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, prior to applying judicial measures, workplaces are given the opportunity to take corrective measures to address a violation. For this reason, not many workplaces found to be in violation of the law were the subject of judicial action: in 2013, 177 workplaces (284 cases) faced judicial sanction.

The Committee notes the statement of the FKTU that more labour inspectors are needed, as there are too many workplaces for each inspector to supervise and inspect (approximately 1,736 workplaces per inspector). The significant number of workplaces found to be in violation of the labour legislation indicates that violations are prevalent in the labour market. Although increasing the number of labour inspectors is essential in preventing infringements of the rights of workers, the Government has not done this.

The Committee recalls that, according to Article 10 of the Convention, the number of labour inspectors should be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate in light of the number of workplaces liable to inspection, the number of workers employed therein, the number and complexity of the legal provisions to be enforced, as well as the material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors and the practical conditions under which inspection visits must be carried out in order to be effective. Moreover, pursuant to Article 16, workplaces should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee accordingly asks that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate, including the inspection of workplaces as often and as thoroughly as necessary. Noting the high percentage of workplaces inspected that were found to be in violation of provisions of the Labour Standards Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Committee asks that the Government take measures to strengthen enforcement in this regard, and to provide information on the impact of the measures taken. It asks that the Government provide further information on the nature of the cases which were the subject of judicial proceedings (specifying the legal provisions concerned, the nature and the severity of the violations and the number of workers affected), as well as the penalties applied. The Committee further asks that the Government provide information, in addition to the number of inspectors (disaggregated by sex) and workplaces liable to inspection, on the number of workers employed in these workplaces.

Articles 12(1)(a) and 15(c). Right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely; confidentiality of complaints. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 17 of the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors, inspections should be subject to a ten-day prior notice to the employer. It noted the indication of the FKTU that an inspection system allowing for unannounced inspections to take place without advance notice had still not been introduced in practice. However, it noted the Government’s indication that the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors was amended in April 2010 to allow for some unannounced inspections.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to the 2010 amendments, a ten-day prior notice to the employer is required for a regular inspection visit, but occasional and special inspection visits are conducted without advance notice in principle. The Government indicates that occasional inspection visits are carried out for most inspections conducted pursuant to complaints, and that these visits are conducted without notice to maintain the confidentiality of complaints. Approximately 30 per cent of workplaces inspected in 2013 received unannounced visits. The Government indicates that, for regular inspections, a ten-day advance notice is given to increase the predictability of labour inspection and thus provide the employer with an opportunity to voluntarily correct any violations. With reference to paragraph 263 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee recalls that the performance of a sufficient number of unannounced inspection visits, as compared to inspections with prior notice, is necessary to enable labour inspectors to discharge their obligation of confidentiality with regard to the source of any complaint and also to prevent the establishment of any link between the inspection and a complaint (Article 15(c)). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that a sufficient number of unannounced inspection visits by the relevant authorities are carried out. It also requests that the Government take appropriate measures to ensure that the duty of confidentiality regarding the existence of a complaint is duly reflected in both law and practice and to provide information on the operation and impact of these measures in practice. In this regard, it asks that the Government continue to provide information on the number of unannounced visits as compared to the total number of inspection visits during the next reporting period and to provide information on the results secured from these inspections (violations identified, sanctions imposed and compliance actions taken).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.