Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) - Republic of Korea (Ratification: 2001)

The Committee notes the communication received on 29 August 2011 from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), and the observations by the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), annexed to the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s replies received on 30 August 2011 and 26 October 2011, respectively.

Article 3. National policy. The Committee notes with interest the legislative measures to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, in particular, the adoption of the Act on the Promotion of the Economic Activities of Career-break Women, etc. No. 9101 of 2008, and the Act on the Promotion of Creation of Family-friendly Social Environment No. 8695 of 2007, as last amended in 2010. It notes that, under the Career-break Women Act, the term “career-break women” is defined as those who want to be employed, among women who have discontinued their economic activities for such reasons as pregnancy, childbirth, childcare or taking care of their family member (section 2); the State and local governments shall establish comprehensive measures to promote the economic activities of career-break women, employers shall make efforts to create a working environment for promoting the economic activities of career-break women (section 3), and the Minister of Gender Equality and Family and the Minister of Labour shall establish a basic plan on the promotion of economic activities of career-break women (section 4). The Committee also notes that, under the Family-friendly Social Environment Act, the State and local governments shall establish and implement comprehensive policies necessary to create a family-friendly social environment (section 3), which is defined as an environment where members of society are able to harmonize work and family life, and the responsibility of raising children and supporting family can be shared at the social level (section 2(1)); employers shall endeavour to create a family friendly working environment (section 4), which is defined as a working environment where a family-friendly system helps workers to harmonize work and family life (section 2(2)); and the Minister of Gender Equality and Family shall formulate basic plans every five years for creating a family-friendly social environment (section 5). With regard to the family-friendly company certification system under the Act (section 11), the Government indicates that 65 companies were granted certification as of the end of May 2011, and that these certified companies are being provided with various incentives such as additional points when evaluating business for government procurement, and a preference is given in loan support for industrial accident prevention facility expenses.

The Committee further notes the amendments to the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation No. 3989 of 1987, including section 6-2, which provides that the Minister of Labour shall establish a basic plan on the realization of equal employment and the reconciliation of work and family life. In this regard, the Government indicates that it established the Second Basic Plan for Healthy Family (2011–15) and the Second Basic Plan on Low Birth Rate and Aging Society (2011–15), and is making efforts to foster a family-friendly social climate and an environment favourable toward childbirth and childcare. The Government further indicates that more efforts are being made to foster an environment favourable for workers with dependants by planning to enact the “Smart Work Promotion Act”. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the Career-break Women Act and the Family-friendly Social Environment Act, as well as the Second Basic Plan for Healthy Family (2011–15) and the Second Basic Plan on Low Birth Rate and Aging Society (2011–15), in the context of workers with family responsibilities. It also asks the Government to provide information on the process of enacting the Smart Work Promotion Act. Please also continue to provide information on the initiative to promote family friendly corporate management, including the family-friendly company certification system, and the results achieved.

Article 4. Leave entitlements for men and women workers with family responsibilities. The Committee had previously noted that the Equal Employment Act 1987 provides childcare leave for a maximum of one year before the child turns three. It notes the Government’s indication that, according to the amendment in February 2010, the child’s age has been extended up to six years of age, and that male and female workers may each take a year of childcare leave, thus amounting to a total of two years for a married couple. The Government indicates that from January 2011, a worker covered by employment insurance has been granted childcare leave of 30 days or more with childcare leave benefits of 40 per cent of the monthly wages; employers are given subsidies to ease the burden due to granting childcare leave or working hour reductions, and to support the use of a substitute workforce. The Committee also notes that section 18-2 of the Equal Employment Act introduced three days paternity leave for a worker whose spouse gives birth. The Government indicates that, under the Second Basic Plan on Low Birth Rate and Aging Society, the Government has drawn up an amendment Bill to change the unpaid paternity leave of three days to paid leave, and if necessary, extend it to 5 days (2 days unpaid). The Committee further notes the statistical information provided by the Government indicating that the rate of childcare leave benefit recipients (men and women) compared to the number of maternity benefit recipients significantly increased from 42.5 per cent in 2008 and 50.2 per cent in 2009, to 55.1 per cent in 2010 (a total of 41,732 workers). However, the statistical information also indicates that less than 2 per cent of the childcare leave beneficiaries are men. The Government states that the number of men taking childcare leave is not high but is rapidly on the rise. In this regard, the Committee notes the comments from the KCTU that, when compared to the number of total newborns, the childcare leave usage rate remains low (7.8 per cent in 2009 and 8.7 per cent in 2010); men’s childcare leave usage rate stands at 2 per cent (out of those who took maternity leave), and when compared to the number of total newborns, it is 0.17 per cent in 2010. In response, the Government indicates that the level of childcare leave benefits has continued to be raised within the available budget and that the Amendment Bill to the Equal Employment Act, which would grant the childcare leave to non-regular workers, was submitted to the National Assembly in September 2011. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the leave entitlements in practice, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such entitlements. Noting the very low number of male beneficiaries of childcare leave, and recalling the importance of equitable sharing of family responsibilities between men and women, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the underlying causes of the low number of men taking childcare leave, and to take measures to promote the exercise of childcare leave particularly by men, as well as to indicate the results achieved by such measures. Please also provide information on the progress of adopting the Amendment Bill to the Equal Employment Act.

Working time arrangements. The Committee notes section 19-2 of the Equal Employment Act, which provides that the employer may grant a reduction of working hours instead of childcare leave, if a worker is eligible to ask for childcare leave pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act; according to section 19-5, an employer shall make efforts to take measures including adjusting business opening and closing time, restricting overtime, adjusting working hours and other measures necessary to support childcare or the worker. The Government indicates that the Ministry of Employment and Labour is in the process of seeking to provide the right to reduced working time during childcare periods through the amendment of the Act. In this connection, the Committee notes the statement of the KCTU that, a worker entitled to a reduction of working hours may still work from 27 up to 42 hours a week, thus nullifying the effect of the working-hour reduction. In this regard, the KEF states that the use of the shorter working time for childcare is very low, and employers and workers are not willing to accept a flexible working hour system for fear of losing teamwork and increased workload for co-workers. In response, the Government refers to section 19-3(3) of the Equal Employment Act prohibiting overtime work, but allowing overtime work not exceeding 12 hours a week, if the worker makes an explicit request.

The Committee had previously asked the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address excessive overtime work which is an obstacle to reconciling work and family responsibilities. It notes the Government’s indication that the Working Hours and Wage System Improvement Committee was established and operated to discuss ways to improve practices and systems related to working hours from June 2009 to June 2010, and the tripartite agreement for improving long working hour practices and advancing work culture was adopted in June 2010. The Government states that it devised “comprehensive measures for improving long working hours” in December 2010, and has been carrying out the measures including the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system. It also indicates that it is seeking to adopt flexible working hours at all public institutions. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the use of the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such systems, as well as their impact on employment of both female and male workers with family responsibilities and their ability to reconcile work and family responsibilities in practice. Recalling that paragraph 18 of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), emphasizes the importance of the progressive reduction of daily hours of work and the reduction of overtime, the Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the process of amendment to the Equal Employment Act with a view to providing the right to reduced working time during childcare periods. Please also provide information on the trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women, and on any measures taken to address excessive overtime work.

Part-time work. The Committee recalls that section 7(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-time Workers provides for the moving of workers with family responsibilities from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa. In this connection, the Committee notes the statement of the KCTU that, while part-time work is promoted by the Government as a priority measure to spread the flexible work system within a variety of childcare working hour reduction systems, female workers account for 74.2 per cent of part-time jobs, which shows that the gender gap in part-time jobs is significant. The KCTU also states that the Government mainly presents female-dominant occupations as jobs suitable for part-time work, aggravating the trends of women taking non-regular jobs, and maintaining that women are mainly responsible for family duties. The Committee also notes that according to the FKTU most public servants working part-time are female, and most of the workers who fill the vacancies due to the shift to part-time work are also women. The Committee notes the Government’s response with regard to the protection of part-time workers and measures supporting companies employing them. The Government indicates that “decent part-time jobs” promoted by the Government are regular jobs, and that the only difference between full-time and part-time workers would be the shorter working hours in order to balance work with family responsibilities. The Committee recalls that the assumption that the main responsibility for family care and the household lies with women, thus reinforcing stereotypical attitudes regarding the roles of men and women and existing gender inequality, runs counter to the objectives of the Convention, and draws the Government’s attention to the Committee’s comments made under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee asks the Government to indicate how the Fixed-term and Part-time Workers Act has facilitated the moving of workers with family responsibilities from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa, with an indication of the number of men and women using this option and the number of women moving back to full-time work. Please also indicate how the issue of female concentration in part-time work is addressed in the context of reconciling work and family responsibilities.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government and the KEF indicating that the number of childcare facilities has increased 30 per cent (23.1 per cent for public facilities) from 29,233 facilities (1,643 public facilities) in 2006, to 38,021 facilities (2,023 for public facilities) in 2010; the capacity of childcare facilities rose 21.6 per cent (19.4 per cent for public facilities) from 1.28 million children (129,000 for public facilities) in 2006, to 1.56 million children (154,000 for public facilities) in 2010; and for the employees at small and medium sized enterprises and smaller businesses, the Government established and has been operating 24 public childcare facilities. The number of government-fostered childcare service providers is likely to increase from around 7,000 persons in 2010 to 10,000 persons in 2011. The Committee further notes that the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act was amended in 2006 to include working married couples who may preferentially use public childcare facilities, thereby increasing the access to childcare facilities for workers. In addition, it notes the Government’s indication that at-home childcare services are provided, and the service was drastically expanded in 2011; the number of households receiving the support is expected to reach 32,000 in 2011, from 13,000 households in 2010. According to the Government, the number of children receiving government support for expenses spent on childcare facilities rose 52.3 per cent from 577,000 children in 2006 to 879,000 children in 2010, and therefore the cost borne by parents is constantly decreasing. With regard to the childcare facilities established by employers according to section 21 of the Equal Employment Act and section 14 of the Infant Care Act, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in 2010, the maximum amount of subsidies for workplace childcare facilities and loans was raised, and grants are provided when a new childcare facility is built. The Government indicates that as of the end of 2010, there were 401 workplace childcare centres (total for both private and public).

The Committee notes the statement of the KCTU that childcare policies are mainly aimed at providing childcare grants to low-income families, therefore such policies are not targeting working parents. It also states that only 5.2 per cent of childcare facilities are run by the central and local governments, therefore constant expansion of public centres is needed. Among children using the facilities, 69.2 per cent (795,121) are given childcare benefits, however, when compared to the total preschool children, the figure drops to 29.5 per cent, leaving about three fourths of children without access to the benefits. According to the FKTU, the proportion of public childcare centres has never exceeded the 5 per cent range since 2003. It points out that if the Government continues to take a market-based approach that allows for profit private childcare centres to act as main service providers, the public nature and stability of such a protection scheme will not be guaranteed, and there will be limited control of the cost burdens on service users. Regarding workplace childcare centres, 41 per cent of the workplaces which are required to set up a workplace childcare centre do not fulfil the obligation. In response to the observations by the FKTU, the Government states that it is providing support for the establishment of public childcare centres to ensure the public nature of childcare and to establish childcare infrastructure, and that it has also provided, since July 2011, private childcare facilities that are recognized for their excellence with subsidies for their operation expenses. The Government also adds that subsidies for childcare expenses are provided to all households in the lowest 70 per cent of the income scale, and to the highest 30 per cent, taking into consideration the necessity for childcare; from March 2012, a programme will be introduced providing all households with a five-year-old child with childcare subsidies regardless of their income levels. Recalling the importance of ensuring that family services and facilities meet workers’ needs and preferences, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed statistical information on the availability of and accessibility to affordable childcare services and facilities including their utilization that would allow the Committee to assess the progress made over time. It also asks the Government to indicate how it is ensured that sufficient public childcare services are provided, and that the cost incurred by employers in order to provide childcare facilities would not adversely affect the employment of workers with family responsibilities.

Article 11. Employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the observations by the KEF that several legal reforms have been made rapidly without sufficiently gathering public opinions, and that even company welfare systems, which should be decided by agreement between workers and employers have been legislated. The KEF also considers that the policy is one of overprotection, including the measures in the “Second Basic Plan for the Low Birth Rate and Aging Society”, such as releasing the list of companies which do not install company-based childcare facilities, extending paternity leave to five days, guaranteeing the right to request working time reduction for childcare, introducing family nursing care leave system, and expanding the scope of miscarriage or stillbirth leave. The KEF indicates that strengthened protection regulations can increase the employment cost of female workers and as a consequence, this would be detrimental to female employment. In response, the Government indicates that the Work-Family Reconciliation and Female Employment Promotion Committee, in which workers, employers and the Government participated, was established and operated from November 2008 to October 2009, having collected and discussed views from various groups concerning the issues of work-family balance and female employment. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the mandate and activities of the Work-Family Reconciliation and Female Employment Promotion Committee. It also asks the Government to provide information on any other measures taken to promote social dialogue and tripartite cooperation in order to strengthen the laws, measures and policies giving effect to the Convention, and on the manner in which workers’ and employers’ organizations have exercised their right to participate in the design and implementation of such measures, including through collective bargaining and the adoption and implementation of workplace policies on work and family reconciliation. Please also indicate measures taken, with the cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, to ensure that the legislation and its practical application would not have a negative impact on the employment of workers with family responsibilities.

Parts III and V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no notable information available on relevant judicial or administrative decisions. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any cases or disputes handled by courts and the National Labour Relations Commission, involving issues relating to workers with family responsibilities.

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