ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments:  > Texts of comments: Republic of Korea

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Republic of Korea

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C135 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations from the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), the Korean Confederation of Trade unions (KCTU) and the Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF), which were received with the Government’s report on 8 September 2021, as well as the Government’s reply to them. The Committee recalls that it previously noted the observations received on 1 September 2014 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) alleging violations of trade union rights in practice, including anti-union dismissals affecting the Korean Government Employees Union and the Korean Railway Workers’ Union. The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply thereto, in particular the information on the process of resolution of the conflicts in both cases and the reinstatement of dismissed union members.
Article 2 of the Convention. Facilities granted to workers’ representatives. In its previous comments, the Committee had questioned a number of provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) prohibiting as an unfair labour practice the payment of wages by an employer to full-time trade union officials, and had requested the Government to take measures to amend them in a way which allowed the parties to determine through free and voluntary negotiation the issue of the payment of wages to full-time trade union officials. The Committee notes with interest that the TULRAA was amended on 5 January 2021 with the deletion of such provisions. Additionally, the Time-off System Deliberation Committee was transferred to the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESLC), where members representing public interest are not recommended by the Government, thus strengthening the representation of the labour and management in the determination of the time-off system. The Time-off System Deliberation Committee decided that the time-off limit would vary according to the size and geographical distribution of a trade union. Each workplace would ultimately fix the wage within the set time-off limit. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF indicating that, with the revised TULRAA, the union activities subject to the paid time-off are now determined by collective bargaining agreements. Those activities include consultation and negotiation with employers, grievance settlement, and industrial safety activities prescribed by the TULRAA and other labour laws, as well as affairs of maintaining and managing a trade union to develop healthy labour management relations.
The Committee further notes the observations from the FKTU and the KCTU raising some concerns in relation to the operation of the time-off system despite the recent amendment of the TULRAA enabling trade union officers to perform trade union duties during a pre-determined maximum working hours without loss of wage. The trade unions regret in particular the imposition of a maximum time-off limit, and the fact that paying wages exceeding this maximum time-off limit may be punished as an unfair labour practice according to the law. In the trade unions’ view, as such, the system still goes against the principle of autonomous decision and self-regulation by labour and management. In addition, the KCTU points out that recent changes on legislation, notably on safety in the workplace or on the prohibition against harassment at the workplace, has widened the scope of activities of workers’ representatives. Consequently, the time-off system should be redesigned to take into account activities that should be performed during working hours by workers’ representatives. In conclusion, in the trade unions’ view, the system needs to be improved to let labour and management freely and voluntarily determine the maximum time-off limit.
While noting the positive developments in this regard, the Committee invites the Government to continue to consult with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations on ways to improve the time-off limit system, including on the concerns raised by the FKTU and the KCTU, so that: (i) the facilities afforded to workers’ representatives enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently; and (ii) the capacity of the social partners to freely determine through collective bargaining the facilities granted to workers’ representatives is fully recognized . The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide practical information on the manner in which the maximum time-off limits are applied under the new system, on the number of complaints of unfair labour practices for payment of wage exceeding the maximum time-off limit, and the sanctions imposed.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the FKTU, the workers’ representative system is characterized by the absence of regulations and sanctions concerning the method and procedure for the election of workers’ representatives, the legal status and authority of workers’ representatives, or concerning employers’ interference in elections and activities of workers’ representatives. The FKTU indicates that the Government and the social partners have agreed to improve the related laws and institutions under the Committee for the Improvement of Laws, Measures, and Practices for Labour Relations Development under the Economy, Society, and Labour Council. The Committee notes, from the Government’s report, that it is committed to sustain its efforts to strengthen the protection of the rights and protection of workers’ representatives, including through the Tripartite Agreement on Improving the Workers’ Representative System (19 February 2021). The Government asserts in particular that a bill reflecting the results of discussion has been submitted and that the new legislation will include matters regarding the election of workers’ representatives via direct, secret, and unsigned voting, the recognition of hours dedicated to union activity as working hours, and establishing a three-year term for workers’ representatives. Welcoming the indication that a new legislation will specify the facilities and protection afforded to workers’ representatives and hoping that such legislation will enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on any developments in this regard.
Lastly, the Committee notes with interest the ratification of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), registered in April 2021. The Committee is hopeful that the ratification of these fundamental Conventions will contribute positively to the implementation of the present Convention.

C186 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2016 and 2018 entered into force for the Republic of Korea on 8 January 2019 and 26 December 2020, respectively. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and on 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying States have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any temporary measures adopted in this regard, their duration and their impact on seafarers’ rights.
Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 3, of the Convention. Scope of application. Cadets. In its previous comments, noting that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter, MOF) had determined, after consultation of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, that cadets are not to be regarded as seafarers, the Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection provided for by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's information that the MLC, 2006 does not provide for a definition of cadets and it is difficult to regard a trained seafarer aboard a Korean ship as a seafarer because they do not sign a labour contract or have a separate job on board. The Government further indicates that the MOF enacted and revised regulations in consideration of the need for cadets to be distinguished from seafarers and receive separate protection in view of their training condition. In particular, the Government indicates that the rights of trainees are protected as they sign an on-site embarkation practice agreement rather than a labour contract (section 21-2 of the Ship Employees Act). While taking note of the Government’s information, the Committee recalls that the Convention adopts a wide definition of seafarer in order to afford protection and decent working and living conditions to all persons working in any capacity on board (Article II, paragraph1(f)). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers in conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee reiterates that, as foreseen in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention, governments, in consultation with social partners, could agree on substantial equivalent measures applicable to cadets where needed.
Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5, of the Convention. Scope of application. Ships. The Committee previously noted that exemptions are made to several provisions of the Seafarers’ Act and other regulatory texts for ships “engaged in coastal waters”. The Committee requested the Government to explain the meaning of the expression “ships engaged in coastal waters”. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ships Safety Act, which implements the SOLAS Convention, designates as “coastal waters” the sea area within 20 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea. The Committee further notes that various sections (e.g. sections 19 and 29) of the Marine Notice on Ship Facilities Standards (hereinafter, Notice on ship facilities) mention “ships engaging beyond coastal waters” as separate from “ships engaged in international voyages”, excluding part of the first from the application of the requirements of the Convention (see under Regulation 3.1). The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that any ships that navigate exclusively in territorial waters are not subject to the application of the MLC, 2006. In this regard, the Government indicates that it defines “waters closely adjacent to sheltered waters” as territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline). The Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006 does not contain the concept of “coastal waters” and that ships excluded from the scope of application with respect of the navigational area are defined under Article II, paragraph 1(i). It also recalls that, as the MLC, 2006 does not explicitly define the terms “closely adjacent to” or “sheltered waters” used in Article II, paragraph 1(i), it is for the competent authority of the Member to determine, in good faith and on a tripartite basis, taking into account the objectives of the Convention and the physical features of the country, which areas could be considered as “sheltered waters” and what distance away from those waters could be considered as “closely adjacent to sheltered waters”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) how it has taken into account the above-mentioned criteria when defining waters “closely adjacent to sheltered waters”; and (ii) the number of ships excluded from the application of the Convention as a result of this definition.
The Committee notes that the Government has taken measures to extend the scope of legislation implementing Regulation 3.1 to cover ships which were previously excluded (see below). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify how the rest of the provisions implementing the Convention apply to all ships covered by it.
Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1. Minimum age. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, pursuant to section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, a shipowner shall not appoint a person under 16 years of age as a seafarer, “provided, however, that this shall not apply to a vessel on which only his/her family works”. It requested the Government to amend section 91(1) in order to ensure that no exceptions are permitted to the minimum age for work. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the exception under section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act takes into account the types of fishing partly operated as a family business. The Government specifies that persons under 16 years of age cannot participate in any maritime training courses nor be issued a seaman’s book, thus they cannot board ships. The Government further indicates that a bill to revise these regulations was pending at the National Assembly and will be presented again at a later date. While recalling that the Convention does not apply to fishing vessels, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the amendment of section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act to ensure conformity with Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee previously noted that section 92 of the Seafarers’ Act provides for exceptions to the prohibition of night work for seafarers under 18 years: “(1) where a shipowner has obtained the consent of such a seafarer and approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as “easy work”; (2) on a ship on which only a family works …”. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in the current seafarers’ education and training system, the prohibition of night work for seafarers under the age of 18 years exists, but there are exceptions only when the navigational watch training of cadets is concerned, in accordance with the curricula of the Maritime High School. The Committee further notes the Government’s reference to section 61-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, as amended. The Government indicates that, under the section, cadets should be allowed to do night work up to 16 hours per week only in case of watchkeeping. Otherwise, night duty is prohibited, except for that approved by the MOF for educational and training purposes under the MLC, 2006 through the confirmation of employment contracts and rules for work. The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraph 1(f) regarding cadets. It recalls that the only possible exceptions to the prohibition of night work for seafarers under 18 years are provided under Standard A1.1, paragraph 3 of the Convention. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to bring section 92 of the Seafarers’ Act in line with Standard A1.1, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It also requests the Government to clarify the meaning of “easy work” under the same section. With respect to section 61-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, the Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the exception to the night work prohibition for watchkeeping duties complies with Standard A1.1, paragraph 3, of the Convention.
Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee requested the Government to specify whether the list of types of hazardous work provided for in section 8 of the Rules on safety and health of seafarers has been determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the list is also the result of collecting opinions from shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 6. Medical certificate. Nature of medical examination. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to section 53(1)(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Seafarers’ Act (hereinafter, Enforcement Ordinance), the examination on eyesight, colour vision and hearing is only applicable to ship personnel and deck watch-keeping ratings under subparagraph 3 of section 2 of the Ship Officer’s Act. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A1.2 regarding the eyesight and hearing examination of seafarers who are not officers. The Committee notes the Government’s information that virtually all crew members must have their eyesight examined when they are on duty during their shift. With regard to auditory aspects, a hearing assessment for the captain, deck crew, and other ratings is suggested. This provides hearing standards for virtually all crew members. Even with respect to colour recognition, all ship personnel, including the captain, engineer, radio operator, on-deck officers, and ratings, are specified as included. Therefore, all crew members whose hearing, vision, and colour recognition can substantially influence the performance of their duties must meet the minimum criteria following the regulations. The Government further indicates that faithful implementation of the MLC, 2006 is confirmed by medical certificates issued to crew members. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraphs 7 and 9. Medical certificate. Period of validity. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to clarify the meaning of section 54 of the Enforcement Ordinance and to indicate how it complies with the requirements under Standard A1.2, paragraph 9. The Committee notes the Government’s information that pursuant to section 54, where the period of validity of the medical certificate expires on a voyage, the validity of the certificate is prolonged of three months. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 1.3. Qualifications of seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on the circumstances in which it is possible to work on board without completing the appropriate education and training pursuant to section 116(2) of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee notes the Government’s information that pursuant to section 116, under section 44 of the Seafarers’ Act, Korean-flagged ships shall obtain approval for boarding and disembarkation through the competent Regional Office of Oceans and Fisheries, which implies a check on whether crew training has been completed. Therefore, all crew members are obliged to complete training, and the crew is not allowed to embark if the training certificate is not confirmed. The Government further indicates that section 116(2) of the Seafarers’ Act refers to extreme exceptions. As a result, it was used as a basis for recognizing the completion of education and training for seafarers who did not receive refresher training, and is not used in general cases. In particular, according to the MOF, exceptions under section 116(2) are in practice not applied in the process of embarkation and disembarkation, but in the event of a special situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
In relation to the exemptions from the obligation to carry certificated officers on board provided by section 12(1) of the Ship Officer’s Act, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives application to Regulation 1.3, paragraph 1, taking into account that no exceptions are allowed under the Convention. Noting the absence of information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard in its next report.
Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the national laws and regulations implementing the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) and (c). The Committee notes the Government’s detailed information on legislation giving effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) and (c)(i)-(iv) of the Convention, including the Labour Standards Act, the Seafarers’ Act and the Guidelines for Registration and Management of Ship Management Business. With regard to the implementation of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), the Committee observes that section 24 of the above-mentioned Guidelines provides that the seafarer management business operator has the duty to establish a financial guarantee for abandonment of seafarers. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi) provides for the establishment of a system of protection to compensate seafarers not only in case of abandonment but “for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi) of the Convention.
Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 7. Recruitment and placement. Investigation of complaints. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on the procedures applied in the investigation of complaints concerning the activities of recruitment and placement services. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 114 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that the MOF shall immediately investigate a complaint filed by a seafarer in connection with the job placement activities of an agency, a seafarer management business operator, or a marine fisheries-related organization prescribed by Ordinance of the MOF. It also provides that, if necessary, the shipowner and the representative of the seafarer may participate in the investigation. The Government indicates that while there is no detailed procedure for the investigation and treatment of complaints, the MOF, through the seafarer labour supervisory system, operates procedures to settle legal complaints and disputes related to seafarers. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. In relation to the 2018 amendments to the Code, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; (b) how are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and (c) do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.
Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislation implementing the requirement of the signature of the seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner (Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a)). The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 27(1) and section 43(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the parties concluding a SEA are “the seafarer” and “the vessel operator”, who conclude a seafarers’ employment agreement through signing or sealing. The Committee notes, however, that the text of the above-mentioned sections, reproduced by the Government, does not mention the requirement of the signature of the SEA by the seafarer and the shipowner. While noting the Government’s indication that, in practice, SEAs are signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires the adoption of legislation prescribing that “seafarers shall have a seafarers’ employment agreement signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner.” The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention.
Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 6. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Termination. Shorter notice period for urgent reasons. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how Standard A2.1, paragraph 6, is applied. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide new information in this regard. It recalls that, under Standard A2.1, paragraph 6, in determining the circumstances justifying the termination of the employment agreement at shorter notice or without notice, each Member shall ensure that the need of the seafarer to terminate, without penalty, the employment agreement on shorter notice or without notice for compassionate or other urgent reasons, is taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 6.
Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A2.2, paragraph 5. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 52 of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner shall give seafarers their payslip including details concerning the applied exchange rate; however, most Korean and foreign seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship receive their wages directly in Korean currency or USD without currency exchange, therefore most payslips do not include an exchange rate. The Government further indicates that whether an appropriate payslip is being given to seafarers – including whether the exchange rate is applied at a level not disadvantageous to the seafarer - is monitored through inspections on working and living conditions of seafarers under the Seafarers’ Act. While noting the Government’s information, the Committee recalls that Standard A2.2, paragraph 5 provides a requirement for the service of remittances to seafarers’ families and does not concern the seafarer’s payslip. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to Standard A2.2, paragraph 5 of the Convention.
Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 6. Wages. Due consideration to Guideline B2.2. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous request on the provisions allowing deductions from remuneration, the Government provides detailed information on legislation allowing deductions from seafarers’ wages (e.g. withholding of income tax; health insurance and pension premiums; and wage cuts due to disciplinary action, labour union dues and mutual aid fees established through collective agreement). The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Cadets. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, following the review of the Seafarers’ Act and the Ship Employees Act, the training crews’ rest time is sufficiently guaranteed. It notes that, according to section 61(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance, as amended, training hours shall not exceed eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, provided that where it is for the purpose of navigational watch training, they may be extended by up to 16 hours per week. Rest time every 24 hours shall be at least 8 consecutive hours. Where unavoidable reasons exist, the shipowner may order practical trainees to conduct training or work exceeding practical hours. The Committee notes that such provisions do not fully comply with Standard A2.3, insofar as hours of rest should be not less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period and adequate compensatory rest should be ensured when seafarers have performed work in a scheduled rest period (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 5(b), 8 and 14). The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraph 1(f) regarding cadets. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraphs 5(b), 8 and 14 of the Convention with regard to cadets.
Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 6 and 13. Hours of work and hours of rest. Division of hours of rest. Exceptions. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the legislation (section 60(4) of the Seafarers’ Act and section 39-5(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance) allowing for a deviation from standards for division of the hours of rest through collective agreement. It noted, in particular, that under section 39-5(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance, hours of rest may be divided into a maximum of up to three separate times. It further noted that the copy of collective agreement provided by the Government provides that the rest period may be divided into four separate periods. Noting that the collective agreement was not in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to explain how the requirements of Standard A2.3 are enforced. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the term “three separate times” specified in section 39-5, paragraph 2(3) of the Enforcement Ordinance was established to divide break time three times into four separate periods, which is in line with the “four separate periods” specified in the above-mentioned collective agreement. Therefore, such collective agreement is considered to be fulfilling the requirements of the Seafarers’ Act. The Government further indicates that compliance with the requirements of Standard A2.3 is examined through the maritime labour certification inspection in accordance with sections 137 and 138 of the Seafarers’ Act. Moreover, if a seafarer reports a violation of the requirement to the competent authorities, an investigation of the alleged violation will be carried out within 25 days. While noting the Government’s information, the Committee refers to its previous comments and reiterates its concern that a period of a minimum of ten hours of rest divided in up to four separate periods, two of which of possibly just one hour, clearly poses the problem of the fatigue of seafarers and its consequences. The Committee also recalls that exceptions under Standard A2.3, paragraph 13 shall, as far as possible, follow the provision of the Standard “but may take account of more frequent or longer leave periods or the granting of compensatory leave for watchkeeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ships on short voyages”. The Committee requests again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraphs 6 and 13.
Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 8. Hours of work and hours of rest. On-call work. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislative or regulatory provisions implementing the requirements under Standard A2.3, paragraph 8 relating to compensatory rest period for on call work. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 60(7) of the Seafarers’ Act, a shipowner shall provide an adequate period of rest in compensation for and corresponding to hours of work to a seafarer who did necessary work despite being during rest time or a seafarer who did not take the normal rest because he/she was called out to work during the hours of rest pursuant to paragraph (6). The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 10. Hours of work and hours of rest. Shipboard working arrangements. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A2.3, paragraph 10 (requirement of posting of shipboard working arrangements). The Committee notes that while the Government has supplied copy of the table of shipboard working arrangements, it provides no information on the requirement to post such table in an easily accessible place as provided by Standard A2.3, paragraph 10. It requests the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 10.
Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 62(4) of the Seafarers’ Act, which provides that a seafarer may request that a shipowner or master provide a copy of records of hours of work and hours of rest and overtime pertaining to him/her, is not in conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraph 12 providing that seafarers shall receive a copy of the records pertaining to them. Noting that section 62(4) of the Seafarers’ Act has not been amended, the Committee refers to its previous comments and requests the Government to bring the Seafarers’ Act in line with Standard A2.3, paragraph 12 of the Convention.
Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b). Repatriation. Maximum period of service on board. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 69 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that, after eight consecutive months of work on board, the shipowner must grant leave within four months, with the possibility of postponing it until the end of the current voyage. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how it ensures, in practice, that the seafarers’ maximum period of service on board is less than 12 months. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 69(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, if a crew member continues to be on board for eight months, paid leave (if sailing, this can be delayed until the end of the voyage) shall be given within four months from the last day of the 8-month period. The Government specifies that most seafarers are granted paid leave within 12 months after boarding the ship; however, recently, due to COVID-19 pandemic, crew changes have been restricted. With the consent of the crew concerned, some crew members have disembarked after 12 months based on the ship’s sailing schedule. The Government points out that in future, once the COVID-19 pandemic has been brought under control, it will consult with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations to devise a reasonable improvement plan so that the maximum practical period on board for all seafarers is less than 12 months. The Committee recalls that it considers that, from the combined reading of Standard A2.4, paragraphs 2 and 3, on annual leave and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), the maximum continuous period of shipboard service is in principle 11 months. The Committee also recalls that in its 2020 General Observation it considered that the extreme fatigue of seafarers who have been on board beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board not only constitutes a situation clearly hazardous for the safety and health of the seafarers concerned, but also profoundly endangers the safety of navigation in general. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring the Seafarers’ Act in full compliance with Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), as well as to ensure that in practice seafarers on board Korean-flagged ships are not requested to continue working beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board derived from the provisions of the Convention.
Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee previously noted that section 38(2) of the Seafarers’ Act provides that a shipowner may claim repatriation expenses from the seafarer in certain circumstances. It requested the Government to provide information on: (i) what would be considered a “justifiable reason” under section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act; (ii) the extent of section 38(2)(3); (iii) examples of “reasons” found in collective agreements or seafarers’ employment agreements that could justify the shipowner’s right to recover repatriation costs; and (iv) the procedure under which the seafarer is found to fall within the abovementioned exceptions. With respect to section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Committee notes the Government’s information that, while the Seafarers’ Act does not define what is “a justifiable reason”, it is considered a circumstance where there is no wilful misconduct or gross negligence, such as: (i) cancelling the employment agreement due to discrepancies of working conditions with the agreement; (ii) when a seafarer is not able to carry out his or her duty due to an injury or disease that occurred on the ship, unintentionally, or (iii) when the ship is sold to a different shipowner. With regard to section 38(2)(3) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Government clarifies that, in collective agreements and seafarer’s employment agreements, standards established in the Seafarers’ Act are applied mutatis mutandis and no other cases are specified separately. As to the procedure under which it is found that the seafarer falls within the abovementioned exceptions, the Government refers to the complaint procedure brought by the seafarer for the violation of the requirements of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the burden and standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers’ employment obligations” pursuant to section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act.
Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7. Repatriation. Financial security. Documentary evidence. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed information in relation to the application of the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2). Concerning Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7, the Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 151-1(2) of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner must post in a conspicuous place on the ship the name and contact information of the repatriation insurance company and the duration of the repatriation insurance. It notes however that section 58-11 of the Enforcement Ordinance (scope of the documents to be posted in the ship) lists only part of the information requested under Appendix A2-I. The Committee requests the Government to specify how it ensures full compliance with Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7 and Appendix A2-I.
Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9. Repatriation. Financial security. Coverage. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether national legislation requires that the financial security system is sufficient to cover the items provided under Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 42-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, repatriation insurance shall guarantee the payment expenses for repatriation, repatriation allowances (defined under section 39 of the Act), as well as expenses incurred in providing goods or services necessary for living on a ship (including food and water, fuel and medical support necessary for survival). The Committee recalls that assistance provided by the financial security system shall also cover outstanding wages and other entitlements due under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective agreements and legislation, limited to four months (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(a)). It also recalls that the system covers the essential needs of the seafarer until the seafarer’s arrival at home (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(c)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to comply with Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(a) and (c).
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(a)–(f). Accommodation and recreational facilities. General requirements. Headroom. Location of sleeping rooms. In its previous comments, the Committee noted various inconsistencies between sections 19 et seq. of the Notice on ship facilities and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(a)–(d) and (f). It requested the Government to provide detailed explanations on the exemptions under the Notice and to review it to ensure conformity with the requirements of Standard A3.1. The Committee notes with interest the following information provided by the Government in reply to its comments: (i) section 21 of the Notice on ship facilities has been amended to allow exemptions (reduction of headspace to 180 cm) only for “ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages but with a navigational area of less than the coastal waters”; and (ii) sections 19 and 22 of the Notice on ship facilities (on location of accommodation spaces, including sleeping rooms) have been amended to extend their application to ships of “more than 200 gross tonnage engaged in or beyond coastal waters and ships engaged in international voyages”. The Committee finally notes the Government’s reference to section 24 of the Notice on ship facilities, which gives application to Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(f) and Guideline B3.1.1. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 44 of the Notice on ship facilities (insulation) “has been amended to exempt ships navigating in territorial waters”. The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5 and requests the Government to ensure that Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(b) is applied to all ships covered by the Convention.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(h). Accommodation and recreational facilities. General requirements. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that it implements Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(h) through clause 4 of section 2 of the Rules on Safety and Health for Seafarers. Under the cited section, a shipowner in order to prevent danger of work on a ship and maintain hygiene shall provide, inter alia, for “installation facilities necessary to maintain an appropriate level of hygiene such as ventilation, skylights and lighting in accommodation, engine rooms and galleys, etc., maintenance of temperature, and prevention of noise and vibration.” The Government further indicates that sections 941 to 971, Part 8, of the Structural Standards of Steel Ships deal with noise. In addition, sections 82 to 91, Chapter 8, of the Safety, Health and Accident Prevention Standards - to be promulgated in 2021 – deal with vibration and sections 92 to 105 deal with noise. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraphs 7 and 9. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Ventilation and heating. Sleeping rooms. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its comments, that the exemption requirements in sections 32 (Installation of Bathroom and Laundry, etc.) and 45 (Heating and Air Conditioning System) of the Notice on ship facilities are established or amended through consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 8. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Lighting. The Committee, noting that section 46 of the Notice on ship facilities provides for an exemption regarding lighting requirements not allowed under the Convention, requested the Government to amend it in order to comply fully with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 46(1) of the Notice on ship facilities refers to passengers’ rooms and not to seafarers’ rooms. The Government also indicates that section 46(2) was amended in order not to allow for exceptions. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 9. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sleeping rooms. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the exception provided by paragraph 3 of table 6 of the Enforcement Ordinance (standards for computation of number of maximum passengers) for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage was not in line with the Convention and requested the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in order for the exemption to be applied to ships not covered by the MLC, 2006, paragraph 3, table 6 of the Enforcement Ordinance will be amended to cover ships with a gross tonnage of 200 tons or more and navigating in territorial waters. Referring to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate which provision requires, in accordance with Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(b), that a separate sleeping room be provided for men and women seafarers. Noting that the Government provides no information in this regard, the Committee requests it to supply such information in its next report.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 10. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Mess rooms. The Committee previously noted that section 29 of the Notice on ship facilities provides for exclusions and exemptions, which are not in conformity with the Convention. It requested the Government to indicate how it respects the criteria allowing exemptions to Standard A3.1, paragraph 10. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 29(1) of the Notice on ship facilities, which only applied to ships of more than 500 gross tonnage engaging beyond coastal waters, was amended to extend its scope of application to “all ships of 200 gross tonnage and above and engaging beyond coastal waters and all ships engaged in international voyages.” It also notes, however, that the same section provides that “exemptions shall be made for passenger ships engaged in short voyages and ships of less than 500 gross tonnage which navigate exclusively in territorial waters”. The Government clarifies that “passenger ships engaged in short voyages” are “passenger ships which navigate for less than six hours and which are not used for crew accommodation” and that it is difficult to install mess rooms in small ships (less than 500 gross tonnage). Regarding ships navigating in territorial waters, the Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5. The Committee also recalls that Standard A3.1, paragraph 10(a) of the Convention only allows the exemption of ships of less than 3,000 GT from the requirement of the location of mess rooms. The Committee requests the Government to bring its legislation in full conformity with Standard A3.1, paragraph 10.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous comments that section 29(1)(1)(c) of the Notice on ship facilities was amended to remove exemptions regarding sufficient refrigerator capacity and a hot/cold drinking water system for ships other than ships of 1,000 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 11. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sanitary facilities. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that section 31 of the Notice on ship facilities is related to requirements for passengers who are on board passenger ships, not seafarers. The Committee further notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous comments that section 32(1) of the above-mentioned Notice has been amended to provide that the requirement on the number of sanitary facilities may be alleviated in case of a “sailing vessel, public vessel, and passenger ship with not more than four hours of navigation”. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities only applies to “ships of 500 gross tons and over engaged in or beyond coastal waters”. It requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the requirements of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c) are implemented in ships of less than 500 gross tons. The Committee notes the Government's information that section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities was amended to extend its application to “all ships of 200 gross tonnage and above and engaging beyond coastal waters and all ships engaged in international voyages.” As a result and pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6, ships of less than 200 gross tonnage with a navigational area of less than the coastal waters are excluded from the application of the requirement of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c), considering the difficulty to install sanitary facilities on small ships. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the requirement of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c) (sanitary facilities for every six persons) is regulated by legislation or collective agreements in relation to ships, which are excluded from the scope of section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities.
Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 12. Hospital accommodation. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its comments, that section 30 was amended to provide for possible exemptions only for sailing boats and state-owned ships. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 2(c), 3 and 4. Qualifications of catering staff. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous request that the exemption under section 76(6) of the Seafarers’ Act (detailed under section 22-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Seafarers’ Act) concern ships which are non-seagoing vessels, ships with a complement of fewer than 10 seafarers, and fishing boats. The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1. Medical care on board and ashore. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 84 and 85 of the Seafarers’ Act, while reproducing respectively the requirements of Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) and (c), provide for exceptions which are not allowed under the Convention. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to fully implement the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in practice the exemption under section 84 (medical doctor on board) has not been used. The Government further indicates that a revision of the relevant regulations is expected. With regard to section 85 (persons in charge of medical service), the Government indicates that it is in line with the Convention. The Committee observes once again that section 85 of the Seafarers’ Act provides for exceptions which are not allowed under Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c), insofar as it: (i) does not apply to “cases prescribed by the Enforcement Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries”; (ii) is limited to ships with a gross tonnage of more than 5,000 tons navigating in ocean waters; and (iii) provides for an exemption to the requirement concerning qualification where a shipowner obtains approval from the competent authorities owing to extenuating circumstances. The Committee requests again the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) and (c).
Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4. Shipowners’ liability. Limits. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend sections 94 and 96 of the Seafarers’ Act in order to ensure that the period of shipowners’ liability is not less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Seafarers’ Act distinguishes occupational injury/sickness from injury/sickness due to a cause other than from service on a ship. For an occupational injury/sickness, medical treatment is given at the shipowner’s expense until the injury/sickness is treated. The shipowner shall pay sickness compensation in an amount equivalent to 100 per cent of ordinary wages during four months, and after an amount equivalent to 70 per cent of ordinary wages shall be paid. According to the Government, ensuring injury/sickness compensation for up to three months for causes other than from service on a ship is a special protection system to enhance the shipowner’s responsibility despite the injury/sickness not being occupational. The Government further indicates that the requirement of the liability period of a shipowner to be “at least 16 weeks from the date of the injury/sickness” is not mandatory and should be applied only to occupational injury/sickness. The Committee recalls that Regulation 4.2 applies to sickness, injury and death occurring while seafarers “are serving under a seafarers’ employment agreement or arising from their employment under such agreement”. Therefore, the Regulation applies to both occupational and non-occupational sickness/injury. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 5 allows for national legislation to exclude shipowner’s liability in respect of injury incurred otherwise than in the service of the ship, but no illness. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 94 and 96 of the Seafarers’ Act in full conformity with Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4 in order to ensure that, with regard to non-occupational sickness and injury, the period of shipowners’ liability is not less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness.
Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1(b) and 8 and Standard A4.2.2, paragraph 2. Shipowner’s liability. Financial security. Form and consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 106 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that “a shipowner shall buy insurance policies or join mutual aids, both of which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, so that he/she fully covers accident compensation described herein for all seafarers aboard a relevant ship of his or hers”. It further notes the Government’s information that the Seafarers’ Act requires shipowners to provide financial security in order to assure compensation in the event of death or long-term disability, as well as injury or sickness of seafarers due to an occupational accident. Oceangoing shipowners buy usually a P&I insurance and domestic shipping owners usually join Korea Shipping Association mutual aids. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing the detailed requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 8.
Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 11 and 14. Shipowner’s liability. Financial security. Documentary evidence. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions requiring that ships to be certified pursuant to Regulation 5.1.3 carry on board documentary evidence of financial security. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 151-1(4) of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner must post in a conspicuous place on the ship “documents describing whether accident compensation insurance, etc. has been purchased, the procedures for claiming and paying insurance money, and other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries”. The Committee notes that section 58-11 of the Enforcement Ordinance referred to by the Government (scope of the documents to be posted in the ship) does not contain all the information listed under Appendix A4-I. The Committee requests the Government to specify how it ensures full compliance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14 and Appendix A4-I.
Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Ship’s safety committee. The Committee previously noted that section 4(1) of the Rules on the safety and health for seafarers provides that “a master may be in charge of safety in case of a ship the number of which is less than 10 persons”. It requested the Government to indicate if safety committees must be established on all ships with five or more seafarers and, if not, to amend its legislation in order to ensure full conformity with Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). The Committee notes the Government’s information that the inspection for certification under section 137 of the Seafarers’ Act requires the confirmation of whether the onboard safety committee has been formed according to the MLC, 2006. The Government further indicates that work is in progress to establish Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards as a Notification of the MOF. According to such standards, ships with more than five crew members are required to form an onboard safety committee consisting of the captain, chief engineer, safety management officer, safety management representative, and medical service officer. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the adoption of the Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards and to provide a copy of it as soon as it is available.
Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 8. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Risk evaluation. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements the obligation provided for under Standard A4.3, paragraph 8. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the inspection for certification pursuant to the Seafarers’ Act requires the confirmation of the implementation of the risk assessment requirement. The Government further indicates that section 46 of the Maritime Safety Act provides that shipowners must establish and implement a management system for safe ship operations including establishing safeguards against all identified hazards. The Government adds that the Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards - that are currently being established - stipulate that shipowners should conduct an annual evaluation of onboard health and safety risks. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in giving full application to Standard A4.3, paragraph 8 of the Convention.
Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures the implementation of Standard A4.5, paragraph 3 to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory, regardless of their nationality. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the National Health Insurance Act, the National Pension Act, and the Employment Insurance Act are applied to all seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship. However, considering that the visa or contract period is limited for a foreign seafarer, insurance is stipulated in a form of voluntary subscription according to the seafarer’s will. The Committee notes that under section 109(2) of the National Health Insurance Act, foreigners resident in the Republic of Korea are employee-insured if they fill certain requirements, e.g. registration pursuant to the Resident Registration Act. It also notes that section 126 of the National Pension Act provides that a foreigner employed in a workplace governed by this Act who resides in the Republic of Korea, other than a person prescribed by Presidential Decree “shall be a workplace-based insured person or individually insured person”. The Committee further notes that the Employment Insurance Act also applies to a foreign worker who holds “a status of residency” (section 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act). The Committee takes note of this information.
Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 6. Social security. Comparable benefits to seafarers in the absence of adequate coverage. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that all seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship can receive social security according to Korean law. Accordingly, section 20 of the Enforcement Ordinance provides that the seafarer employment agreement should include details on the protection of health and social security. However, seafarers without residency in Korea who board and leave from ports abroad, due to the limitation of a seafarer’s contract, return to their home country after the termination of the contract. In this case, the social security provided by the Republic of Korea such as health insurance can only be received in Korean territory, providing no benefits for a non-resident seafarer. The Government clarifies that non-resident seafarers can apply for insurance, but even though they pay the insurance premium, in practice they will receive no benefits. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development aimed at ensuring comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers working on board Korean-flagged ships.
Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Intervals of inspection. The Committee notes that in reply to its request on the scope of section 123(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Government indicates that ships subject to the application of the Convention are periodically inspected within three years pursuant to section 137 of the Seafarers’ Act and the remaining ships are subject to inspection under section 123 of the Act. The exemption provided by section 123(1) is to avoid that a ship inspected through section 137 is re-inspected through section 123. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 6. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Independence of inspectors. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that the Seafarer Labour Supervisor shall be appointed by the MOF or the head of each local government from among the public officials of the Ministry. The public officials of the Republic of Korea shall maintain political neutrality in accordance with the State Public Officials Act and section 65 of the National Public Officials Act. In addition, the Seafarer Labour Supervisor shall perform his/her duties fairly and independently pursuant to section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5. Flag State responsibilities. Investigation and remedy. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that the Seafarer Labour Inspector shall confirm compliance with the MLC, 2006 in accordance with the Seafarer Labour Inspector’s Duties Rules, and the implementation guide shall be used for reference. The Committee takes note of the table provided by the Government describing the complaint process. It further notes the Government’s information that, in accordance with section 5 of the Seafarer Labour Inspector’s Duties Rule, upon receipt of a complaint on board, the inspector shall investigate without delay and listen to the statements of the shipowner and seafarers. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Confidentiality of sources of grievances or complaints. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that measures to maintain the confidentiality of persons receiving complaints and grievances in accordance with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10 are specified in section 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, section 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act and section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act. Section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that Seafarers’ Labour Supervisors shall not divulge confidential information they had access to while performing duties. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.
Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. Reporting on inspections. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify how it is ensured that a copy of the inspection report is posted on the ship’s noticeboard as required by Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. The Committee notes the Government’s information that when an inspection is carried out pursuant to sections 136 and 138 of the Seafarers’ Act, the Maritime Labour Certificate shall be issued with the inspection details, and a copy of the issued certificate shall be posted in a clearly visible place on board. The Committee recalls that according to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12, the copy of the report of each inspection shall be posted on the ship’s noticeboard for the information of the seafarers and, upon request, sent to their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12 of the Convention.

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).
The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KEF communicated with the Government’s supplementary information.
Article 4 of the Convention. Leave entitlements for men and women workers with family responsibilities. Previously, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the leave entitlements in practice, encouraged the Government to continue to take proactive measures so that more men exercise their right to take leave for childcare, and to indicate the results achieved by such measures. It notes that, according to statistics provided by the Government in its reports, the number of recipients of childcare leave continued to significantly increase between 2015 and 2019 (from 87,339 to 105,165 recipients in general and from 4,872 to 22,297 men). However, while the ratio of men among childcare leave beneficiaries significantly improved (from 5.6 per cent to 21.2 per cent in the same period), it remains low. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, previously the Government indicated that the underlying causes of the low number of men taking childcare leave is due to the overall social and employment cultures (such as the long-standing practice of working long hours and fear of what the supervisor or co-workers might think; in addition to the fact that men are still the majority of the primary – if not the only – revenue earner in the family). Consequently, the Committee encourages the Government: (i) to strengthen awareness-raising and education initiatives for both women and men, employers and workers, and society at large, to bring about better understanding of the problems encountered by all workers with family responsibilities and the importance of promoting equality between men and women with family responsibilities as well as facilitate the reconciliation between work and family responsibilities; (ii) to report on the results achieved by measures taken to encourage more men to exercise their right to take leave for childcare; and (iii) to continue to provide information on the leave entitlements, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such entitlements.
Working time arrangements and part-time work. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government: 1) to provide information on the status of the amendments relating to the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system as well as on the implementation of the 2018 amendments to the Labour Standards Act to reduce working hours, the trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women, as well as on any measures taken to address excessive overtime work and its impact on work-life balance; and 2) to indicate the number of men and women using the possibility of moving from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa, and the measures taken to avoid female concentration in part-time work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it supports businesses with less than 300 employees to implement the 2018 amendments to the Labour Standards Act (reducing working hours to 52 hours per week), including through measures adopted in December 2019 to grant a “guidance period” to businesses with 50 to 299 employees and deploying “On-site Support Teams of the Reduced Workweek” at 48 local labour offices nationwide. In this regard, the Committee notes the KEF’s observations that companies would need flexible working hours systems in order to cope with the challenge of implementing the 52 hours work week. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the reduced working hours scheme under the Labour Standards Act. It notes that the number of beneficiaries of reduced working hours during childcare period doubled between 2017 and 2019 (from 2,821 to 5,660) but that men still represent only 13.1 per cent of these beneficiaries (they were 11.4 per cent in 2017 and 14.4 per cent in 2018). The Committee also notes the constant but slow decline of the annual working hours of wage workers in businesses with five regular employees or more (down to 1,978 hours in 2019, i.e. a decrease of 3.6 per cent compared to 2016). It also notes the Government’s indication that it publicizes, through media outlets, the program allowing full-time workers to shift to part-time work when needs arise and then return to full-time work, highlighting that both men and women can convert to part-time work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as the demand for caring services increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it temporarily raised the amounts of benefits provided under this system of temporary shift to part-time work. The statistics provided by the Government show that 5,847 persons took advantage of this system as of June 2020, an increase of 83.6 per cent compared to the same month in 2019. The Committee notes, however, that these statistics show a decrease of the proportion of men using this system: in 2019, 17 per cent of beneficiaries were men compared to 27.8 per cent in 2018 (the temporary figure as of June 2020 being at 24.9 per cent). Finally, the Committee notes that a bill to reform the flexible hours system, based on a tripartite consensus reached within the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESLC), was submitted to the National Assembly on 6 July 2020. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of workers, disaggregated by sex, using the switchable part-time work system, and especially the number and proportion of women moving back to full-time employment after using the system to work part-time, and to provide information on the concrete measures taken to avoid concentration of women in part-time work, in the context of reconciling work and family responsibilities. Please provide information on any legislative reform of the system.
Other members of the family. Formerly, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the family care leave system, including statistics. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that Article 22-2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act, 2007 was amended as of August 2019 in order to: (1) add grand-parents and grand-children to the list of relatives for which family care leave can be taken; and (2) introduce a second paragraph allowing workers to request “short-term family care leave” for up to ten days per year, one day at a time (the pre-existing “family care leave” provided in the first paragraph of this article being for up to 90 days per year, to be taken by periods of 30 days minimum), with the ten days of short-term leave being deducted from the global annual allowance of 90 days. In the supplementary information provided, the Government states that this type of family care leave was increased from 10 to 20 days per year in September 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as family care leave is agreed between the employer and the employee, there is no data in the employment insurance database and it is difficult to obtain specific figures on its usage. It adds that, in case a request for such leave is denied without justifiable reason, the employee may report the case to the Ministry of Employment and Labour, and labour inspectors would decide if the employer violated the law. If the employer fails to prove its case, an administrative fine not exceeding five million won (USD 4,000) may be imposed. However, since the introduction of the family care leave system in 2012, no fine has been imposed. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of the family care leave system and any legislative or policy developments in this regard, including on the increase of family care leave from 10 to 20 days per year.
Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the availability of and accessibility of affordable childcare services and facilities, including their utilization by workers. It notes the information and statistics provided by the Government on the subject, including the fact that the Government runs a Public Notice System for childcare centers with a view to inform parents on the offer of childcare facilities. It also notes that a child care service has been put in place whereby caregivers go to private homes to help families with children aged 12 or less where both parents are working. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information, including statistics, on childcare services and facilities, including their utilization by workers.
Article 6. Information and education. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its request for information on the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to overcoming existing difficulties for men and women workers with family responsibilities, and on the way workers’ and employers’ organizations are fully integrated into the development, monitoring and updating of work–family balance measures. It notes the Government’s indication that it carries out consulting services, education programs and public campaigns, offers workplace education and holds family-friendly business management forums. Regional family-friendly councils, created to promote family-friendly practices in society, select issues reflecting local situations and conduct cooperative projects such as organizing joint campaigns and forums, utilizing skilled regional workforce and offering consulting services. As of 2019, 14 councils are operating in 15 cities and provinces. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to work-life balance.
Article 7. Vocational guidance and training. The Committee notes that, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government indicates that new job centers for women offer customized training courses in sectors with high demand for workers to women who have taken a career break. It also notes the statistics disaggregated by occupational sector provided.
Article 11. Employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on the activities of the Public–Private Work-Family Balance Council and its recommendations relating specifically to workers with family responsibilities and to provide a copy of its annual report if any. It notes the Government’s indication that the Council does not publish a report but that it made ten proposals for workplace innovation, in order to promote a culture that values a healthy work-life balance and improve work productivity, among which: reducing unnecessary overtime work, refraining from contacting employees after work, promoting the use of flexible work, promoting a healthy after-work company gathering culture and promoting the use of annual leave. The Committee asks the Government to indicate if, and how, these proposals were implemented and the results obtained, in particular on the percentage of men seizing all these opportunities to participate more equitably in the sharing of family responsibilities. Please provide information on any other initiative taken by the Public-Private Work-Family Balance Council.
Enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide: (1) information on the supervisory authorities and enforcement mechanisms giving effect to the provisions of the Convention, as well as any administrative or judicial decisions relating to the application of the Convention; and (2) information that may enable the Committee to assess how the principles of the Convention are applied in practice and how progress is being made. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning workplace guidance and inspection as well as the handling of reported cases. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information, including statistics, on the cases handled by the supervisory authorities and enforcement mechanisms.
The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its general observation adopted in 2019, recalling the relevance, importance and practical usefulness of the principles laid down in the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165), whose aim is to ensure that all workers with family responsibilities – women as well as men – are not disadvantaged in relation to other workers and, in particular, that women with family responsibilities are not disadvantaged in comparison to men with family responsibilities. Recalling the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work’s aim to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stressing the importance of the Convention in achieving this goal, the Committee called for member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations, to strengthen efforts towards specific goals.

C156 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).
The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KEF communicated with the Government’s supplementary information.
Article 3 of the Convention. National policy. Legislative developments. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the application of the Framework Act on Gender Equality, 2014 as amended, and the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, 2007 as amended; (2) the concrete measures taken in application of several plans aiming at gender equality in employment and support to workers with family responsibilities; and (3) the family-friendly company certification system, indicating the criteria taken into account and process to award the certification to a corporation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, notably the implementation of the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies (2018–2022) to ensure equal rights and opportunities of men and women and create a society that promotes work-life balance, the setting up of a gender equality committee and yearly implementation plans. It notes with interest that the scope of application of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, which used to be limited to businesses with five employees or more, has been extended to all workplaces, except those constituted only by relatives living together and housekeeping employees (article 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 28910 of May 28, 2018), and that the paternity leave, under article 18-2 of the Act, has been extended from five to ten days in August 2019.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has established and implemented the “Women’s Employment Plan” as the Sixth Basic Plan for Equal Employment Opportunities, focusing on three aspects (preventing career breaks, supporting reemployment after a career break and creating a non-discriminatory working environment) with seven major projects and 64 implementation strategies. It has taken measures to increase support and quality of childcare and nursery services and guaranteed workers’ maternal and parental rights by eliminating blind spots in maternity and parental leave (notably by raising the benefits after the first three months of childcare leave, up to 50 per cent of the ordinary wage, and allowing workers who have worked for less than one year to take childcare leave). It also promoted family-friendly business management by raising public awareness on the issue, enhancing support and guidance for companies to promote work-life balance, strengthening public-private cooperation and promoting a culture of leaving work on time. According to the Government, the results of a 2018 implementation monitoring survey show enhanced support for childcare and the spread of a ‘work-life balance’ culture. The Government introduced child benefit in the amount of 100,000 won per month (US$80) for families in the bottom 90 per cent of income-earners and expanded the childcare support infrastructure (12 new community childcare centres, 574 public kindergartens and 238 public childcare centres). It also improved the childcare support system, notably for vulnerable families, by upgrading in-home childcare services and increasing childcare expense support for single-parent families. Finally, it raised the ceiling for father’s childcare leave bonus schemes and increased the income replacement rate of benefits for reduced working hours during childcare periods (up to 80 per cent); implemented a vacation support program for workers and encouraged more companies to apply for a “family-friendly enterprise certification” (3,833 as of January 2020, compared to 2,807 in 2017). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the criteria taken into account and the process to award such certification.
The Committee welcomes such initiatives, as well as the implementation of the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Economic Activities of Career-interrupted Women (2015-2018) and the coming into force of the third Basic Plan (2020–2024). The Committee notes that many of these initiatives are geared specifically towards women and that even the names of some of the plans and initiatives reveal the correlation between caregiving duties (especially towards children) and female workers. The Committee wishes to recall that the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165)), have the dual objective of creating equality of opportunity and treatment in working life between men and women with family responsibilities, on the one hand, and between men and women with such responsibilities and workers without such responsibilities, on the other. Where inequalities exist between men and women workers regarding their family responsibilities and where that situation results in restricting the economic activity of women workers only, it would be legitimate to aim measures at women, provided that men are not formally barred from access to such measures should they find themselves in the same circumstances (see General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, paragraphs 25 to 29). The Committee also notes the observations made by FKTU and KCTU regarding the fact that family obligations are still overwhelmingly associated with, and carried out by, women and that female workers’ careers are disproportionately impacted.
In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government: (i) to indicate the concrete measures taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment for men and women workers with family responsibilities as well as between workers with family responsibilities and those without such responsibilities; (ii) to indicate, more particularly, how it is ensured that those family-friendly measures do not reinforce the stereotype predominantly associating family responsibilities to female workers and create a feminization of diverse forms of employment and working arrangements; and (iii) to continue to provide information on any new legislative or policy development with a view to implementing the Convention.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the Government’s second and third reports on the application of the Convention. It also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) received by the Office on 31 August 2018. The Committee further notes that the 2016 amendments to the annexes of the Convention entered into force for the Republic of Korea on 8 June 2017. The Committee recalls that these amendments aim at aligning the technical requirements of the Convention with the latest standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with respect to the technology for seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs) provided for in the Convention. In particular, they intend to change the biometric template in SIDs from a fingerprint template in a two dimensional barcode to a facial image stored in a contactless chip as required by ICAO Document 9303.
The Committee notes that, according to the information submitted by the Government in its report, no measures have been taken so far to issue new SIDs in accordance with the technical requirements of the Convention, as amended in 2016. The Committee recalls in this regard the Resolution adopted by the third meeting of the Special Tripartite Committee of the Maritime Labour Convention, as amended (MLC, 2006), whereby it expressed concern about the difficulties seafarers continue to have in accessing shore leave and transiting in certain ports and terminals around the world and recognized that although an increased number of member States have ratified Convention No. 185, there still appear to be problems in ensuring that the Convention works in the way that it was originally intended. The Committee requests the Government to address the issues raised below and to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to issue new SIDs in accordance with the amended version of the Convention.
Article 1. Scope of application. Concerning the definition of seafarers, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the comments made in the framework of the examination of the application, by the Republic of Korea, of Article II(f) of the MLC, 2006. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection provided for by Convention No. 185.
Articles 3–5. Requirements of the 2016 amendments. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Government had amended its legislation to ensure conformity with the previous version of the Convention, thereby introducing SIDs containing machine-readable biometric data (fingerprint). A biometric recognition system had been developed in 2005 to enable a record of each SID issued, suspended or withdrawn to be stored in an electronic database. The Government indicated however, that, in practice, no SIDs had been issued and no steps had been taken to set up the relevant database, due to an apparent lack of any practical need. It further stated that no independent evaluation of the system for issuing SIDs had been carried out and that it did not intend to apply for its entry into the list of Members meeting the minimum requirements of Article 5(1). The Government also indicated that existing seafarers’ pocketbooks were sufficient for the purposes of verifying the seafarer’s identity and, therefore, there was little reason for a new SID issuance system in the absence of a generalized practice among member States. The Committee requested the Government to transmit copies of the relevant legislation as well as to supply a specimen of the SID issued in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no additional legislative or other measures have been enacted or revised. It also notes that the Government has not supplied a specimen of an SID, but a copy. Noting that no steps have been taken to issue new SIDs in accordance with the amended text of the Convention, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure conformity with Articles 3–5 of the Convention and with the requirements of Annexes I–III, as amended in 2016. It requests the Government to provide relevant information in this regard and to transmit copy of legislation giving effect to the amended version of the Convention.
Article 6. Facilitation of shore leave and transit, and transfer of seafarers. The Committee notes the FKTU observation that the Korean Government’s current practice of restricting the entry and arrival of seafarers carrying valid identity documents for the purposes of protecting national security and fending off unregistered aliens runs contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The FKTU adds that, in particular, the “Joint Directive on the authorization of port entry by ships whose foreign seafarers have disembarked without permission”, adopted on 9 November 2016 by various ministries, the National Intelligence Service, the National Police Agency, the Korea Customs Agency and the Korea Coast Guard, bans the entry into Korean ports of ships whose seafarers have either landed or disembarked their ships in Korea without permission. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) designates the ships barred from Korean ports upon reports from the Immigration Office. The FKTU also indicates that the Korean Government prohibits foreign seafarers from disembarking from ships that are detained at Korean ports due to financial and other reasons. In this regard, it refers to the case of detention of a foreign ship in the Namhang Port in Busan in August 2017, where ten foreign seafarers were forced to stay on board in dire conditions, as the Korean Immigration Office refused to issue temporary shore leave alleging the possibility of their illegal stay in Korea. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.
Article 7. Continuous possession. The Committee notes the FKTU’s observation that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Seafarers’ Act requiring seafarers to keep their SIDs in their possession at all times (section 48(5)) and the 2013 “Measures to improve the working conditions of foreign seafarers working on board offshore fishing vessels” (requiring the written consent of seafarers for keeping their SIDs), private shipowners still seize and keep the SIDs of foreign seafarers as long as the latter are required to give their consent on blank paper or on forms in Korean only. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer