Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3457 (Republic of Korea) - Complaint date: 05-MAR-24 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainants allege that the Government has infringed the KGEU’s right to organize and bargain collectively by interfering with a referendum held by that public sector union, interfering with the trade union activities of its members and urging them to withdraw from it, and ordering the revision of collective agreements while denying their validity

1. 515. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 5 March 2024 submitted by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Korean Government Employees’ Union (KGEU). The KCTU and the KGEU sent additional information in a communication dated 9 May 2025.
2. 516. The Government transmitted its observations in a communication dated 20 April 2025.
3. 517. The Government of the Republic of Korea has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Protection of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 518. In their communications dated 5 March 2024 and 9 May 2025, the complainants assert that the Government of the Republic of Korea has violated Conventions Nos 87 and 98 through a series of actions against the Korean Government Employees’ Union (KGEU) affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), namely by: (1) interfering in a referendum by the KGEU among its members on the Government’s public and labour policies, including by imposing disciplinary measures and initiating criminal proceedings against the trade union executives involved; (2) interfering with the KGEU’s trade union activities and urging its members to withdraw their trade union membership; and (3) abusing the national laws which infringe the right to free and voluntary bargaining, ordering the parties to revisit and alter provisions in collective bargaining agreements and denying their validity.
2. 1. The KGEU’s referendum on the Government’s public and labour policies
3. 519. The complainants indicate that the KGEU, a trade union representing some 150,000 government employees, in September 2022, agreed to hold a referendum among its members to solicit their views on the Government’s policy towards its employees across the nation, including envisaged amendments to their working conditions, and to communicate the union’s collective stance thereon in the hope of influencing the Government into changing its policies.
4. 520. The complainants state that KGEU members were asked to express their support or opposition concerning seven specific policy issues listed in the referendum, namely:
   • (1) whether the Minister of Public Administration and Safety [sic] should be dismissed or disciplined for failing to prevent the crowd crush and mass deaths on Halloween night in Seoul in 2022, and whether the transfer of blame to lower-level civil servants should stop;
   • (2) whether to raise wages of government employees by 1.7 per cent in 2023;
   • (3) whether the Government should move forward with its plan to reduce the public sector workforce by 5 per cent over the next five years;
   • (4) whether the current pension-eligible age of 65 years should be maintained for government employees, considering that their retirement age is 60 years;
   • (5) whether government employees should be required to work longer hours and be subjected to “differential” minimum wages;
   • (6) whether key social and public services (for example, care, nursing, medicine and education) should be further privatized; and
   • (7) whether the current Government’s policy of cutting taxes for corporations and the rich, while cutting welfare spending, should be maintained.
5. 521. The complainants state that on 5 November 2022, KGEU executives held a press conference to announce the referendum, urging all members to cast their votes on the above-mentioned issues and voice their opinions. They add that the referendum was held over three days, from 22 to 24 November 2022.
6. 522. The complainants state that the Minister of Public Administration and Safety (hereinafter the Minister of the Interior and Safety as per website) responded to the press conference by issuing an official communication on 16 November 2022, which was sent to the heads of all national government departments and agencies, to ban the upcoming referendum. The complainants add that the Minister expressed the view that the referendum exceeded the bounds of legitimate trade union activities and urged the heads of governmental bodies to take “active” measures to prevent their employees from taking part in it, including increased surveillance of union members. Moreover, the complainants state that the Minister warned union members of severe disciplinary consequences, in accordance with “the law and principles”, should they participate in the referendum.
7. 523. The complainants state that the KGEU held another press conference on 28 November 2022 to announce the results of the referendum. They allege that the Minister’s warnings had led to only one third of the 150,000 registered members having taken part in the voting. They add that among the 38,543 members who had cast their votes, nearly 90 per cent had clearly indicated their discontent with the Government’s labour policy, allowing the KGEU to demand a review of that policy.
8. 524. The complainants further add that on 8 December 2022, the Minister publicly condemned the referendum as illegal, petitioning the National Police Agency to investigate the KGEU. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency then launched an investigation into the drafting and organization of the referendum, focusing on the president and four other high-level leaders of the KGEU. In May 2023, the police referred the case to prosecution, concluding that the KGEU’s union officers had violated the State Public Officials Act and other laws, that the referendum did not constitute legitimate trade union activity, and that the seven issues put to vote were political statements unrelated to improving the union members’ working conditions. The complainants state that, as of May 2025, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office was still reviewing whether to proceed with the prosecution of KGEU union executives for organizing the referendum. The complainants state that some local governments enforced disciplinary measures against KGEU leaders for mobilizing votes, including censure, warnings and similar measures. They add that the disciplined union leaders filed appeals, and that some administrative appeal commissions ruled the disciplinary measures to be unjustified in view of legitimate trade union activities, but that several local governments had not yet revoked these measures. The complainants also state that, following administrative lawsuits filed by some union leaders against disciplinary measures, the Ulan District Court (first instance) rendered a decision in June 2024. The court ruled that only some of the issues on the referendum agenda directly affected government employees’ working conditions, while others pertained to national policymaking, and the first issue was political in nature. Consequently, the court held that the entire referendum violated the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and that the disciplinary measures were justified.
9. 525. Concerning the referendum, the complainants argue that it addressed essential economic and social policy decisions directly impacting KGEU members’ interests and working conditions, and had been a legitimate exercise of the trade union’s rights and freedom of expression of their occupational concerns protected under Convention No. 87. They contend that freedom of expression and opinion are fundamental civil liberties crucial to the exercise of freedom of association, and public employees in unions should also be entitled to these rights. They further emphasize that the union’s public communications were aimed to protect and advocate for KGEU members’ interests without endorsing or opposing any politicians or political parties, thus not qualifying as a “purely political activity” discouraged among public servants. They add that the possibility that the referendum’s outcome might align with a political faction does not render the union’s expression of opinion political or illegitimate. Moreover, the conduct of the referendum did not directly concern or affect their work or duties as public servants. They provide detailed information and background in relation to each of the issues on the referendum’s agenda:
   • (1) The complainants indicate that the first issue on the referendum was whether the Minister should be dismissed or disciplined, instead of blaming and holding lower-ranking officials accountable, for the tragic incident in Seoul on 29 October 2022. They add that this incident had resulted in over 100 deaths during Halloween celebrations in the Itaewon district, due to a crowd surge. They state that the Government had responded by disciplining lower-ranking officials, most of them being members of the KGEU or recruit-targets, publicly criticizing them for not preventing the tragedy and subjecting them to arduous interrogations. In this context, they also argue that the Minister is not a figurehead of a certain political party or cause, but a state official overseeing policies and budgets that impact local government employees.
   • (2) The question of the remuneration of KGEU’s members concerned the Government announcement of a cap of 1.7 per cent on the annual wage increase for government employees in 2023.
   • (3) The third issue, namely the Government’s policy to reduce the governmental workforce by 5 per cent over the next five years, could result in a significant increase in the workload for remaining KGEU members, exacerbating already high levels of overwork and turnover rates among civil servants, with nearly 10,000 government employees leaving the workforce annually within five years of service. The complainants also allege that the extreme fatigue from increased workloads during the pandemic had led to higher suicide rates.
   • (4) The fourth issue concerned the question of whether the current pension age of 65 should be maintained. A major 2015 pension reform had delayed pension benefits to age 65, causing concerns about an income gap between retirement at 60 and the first pension payout. The complainants add that despite promises, the Government had not developed measures to address this gap, leaving 1,700 retirees in 2022 in serious financial difficulty. They state that the number of affected retirees was expected to grow in the coming years unless action was taken.
   • (5) The fifth issue concerned the question of whether KGEU members approved of the Government’s plan to increase working hours and introduce differentiated minimum wage rates by sector and region, which they argue would affect both government employees and private-sector workers. The complainants submit that the annual wage increase rates for the lowest ranks of public servants (namely grades 8 and 9) were based on the private sector’s minimum wage, which is why the above-mentioned plans of the Government would directly impact their pay.
   • (6) Turning to the sixth issue, the complainants assert that the privatization of key social and public services in care, nursing, medicine, and education could possibly lead to the restructuring and reduction of the public-sector workforce. They argue that a significant number of KGEU members worked in these sectors, and privatization would inevitably result in lay-offs and deteriorating working conditions for those who remain.
   • (7) Concerning the seventh issue, the complainants assert that the Government’s plan to reduce taxes for corporations and the wealthy while cutting public budgets for social services, was a crucial issue for the KGEU due to its impact on public servants in social services. They assert that this would ultimately lead to lay-offs of social workers and have significant effects on the working conditions for those remaining, with the risk of a dramatic rise in the workload.
10. 526. Concerning the disciplinary measures and criminal proceedings, the complainants argue that sections 65 and 66 of the State Public Officials Act, and sections 57 and 58 of the Local Public Officials Act, referred to by the Government as being the grounds for these measures and proceedings, run contrary to Convention No. 87, as these provisions did not only impose a general ban on all form of political activities, but also prohibit collective actions of civil servants and the expression of collective opinions or stances by public officials. They argue that the impartiality required of public employees does not justify such categoric restrictions, that the relevant provisions should be amended and that the Government should endeavour to guarantee freedom of association and expression of government employees and their unions by clearly defining certain intrinsic characteristics of occupation in the public service that would limit such freedoms. They further contend that restricting public sector unions from collectively expressing their opinions, while allowing private-sector unions to do so, also runs contrary to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), referring to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR)’s comments on the State Public Officials Act under that Convention.
11. 527. Concerning the freedom of association and the right to organize of the KGEU and its members, the complainants refer to paragraph 334 of the Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, relating to the application of Convention No. 87 to employees of the State. The complainants express the view that Article 3 of Convention No. 87 also protects the freedom of (public) workers’ organizations to organize and plan their operations and programmes, including political and other public activities (such as protests, strikes, and popular campaigns), including the expression of their opinions on economic and social issues, as part of promoting their interests and rights. Referring to paragraphs 735, 736, 737, 739, 740 and 741 of the Compilation, the complainants argue that Convention No. 87 specifically recognizes the right of trade unions to activities, such as the right to petition, the right to procedures for submitting claims to the employers, the right to critique and denounce competent authorities (on matters of occupational safety and health), the right to campaign for a minimum wage, and the right to hold sit-ins. The complainants also refer to Case No. 1865, Report No. 346, paragraph 749 concerning the Republic of Korea, in relation to the Committee’s recommendation in that case for “the Government to ensure that public officials’ trade unions have the possibility to express their views publicly on the wider economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on their members’ interests …”. Moreover, they refer to Report No. 382, paragraph 60 of the same case, in which the Committee stated that:
    • … while purely political strikes do not fall within the scope of the principles of freedom of association, trade unions should be able to have recourse to protest strikes, in particular where aimed at criticizing a government’s economic and social policies … [W]hile duly noting from its previous examination … that the status of public servants is such that certain purely political activity can be considered contrary to the code of conduct that is expected of these servants and that trade union organizations should not engage in political activities in an abusive manner and go beyond their true functions by promoting essentially political interests – the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that public officials’ trade unions have the possibility to express their views publicly on the economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on their members’ interests… .
12. 2. The requests made to grade 6 government officials to relinquish their membership with the KGEU
13. 528. The complainants assert that, following the nationwide local elections in June 2022, several newly elected heads of local governments, particularly the mayors of the Seoul districts of Jongno-gu and Songpa-gu, publicly renounced the collective agreements signed by their predecessors with government employee unions, refusing to implement the terms of the agreements including those relating to questions such as personnel management. The complainants allege that, following the organization of single-person demonstrations and press conferences in response to the non-compliance with key features of existing collective agreements, these mayors had subjected union members to disciplinary actions, criminal proceedings, and other forms of disadvantage at work, including pressuring “team-leaders” (at grade 6 of the civil service system) to relinquish their membership with the union.
14. 529. In particular, the complainants refer to the mayor of the Jongno-gu district sending official letters on four occasions between November and December 2022, insisting that team-leaders (at grade 6 of the civil service system) and assistant managers dealing with budget did not have the right to join unions under the applicable legal provisions, threatening to take “actions pursuant to the law” if they did not relinquish their union membership by 29 December 2022. The complainants state that the KGEU filed a report with the Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) alleging unfair labour practices by the mayor of Jongno-gu, but that the case was closed in May 2024. The complainants add that more than 200 of the 900 members of the Jongno-gu KGEU chapter rescinded their membership under the above-mentioned pressure. The complainants also state that the mayor of Jongno-gu disciplined local KGEU officers and demoted Lee Seung-un, the Vice-President of the Jongno-gu KGEU chapter, from a grade 6 team-leader to a mere assistant manager, and reassigned three KGEU officials (Ms Jeon, Chairperson; Ms Lee, Vice-Chairperson; and Mr Hwang, Secretary) who had been guaranteed time off as full-time union officials, to other positions and departments. Moreover, they allege that between November 2022 and May 2023, the mayor threatened to penalize union officials for spending their working hours on union activities, suspended Ms Jeon for three months, and initiated criminal proceedings against her for dereliction of duty, thereby violating article 10 of the Jongno-gu Collective Agreement. The complainants further state that the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the criminal charges against Ms Jeon. Subsequently, the KGEU initiated legal proceedings before the Seoul Administrative Court challenging her suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure – they indicate that the case remained pending in May 2025. The complainants indicate that the mayor had openly claimed that the terms of the Jongno-gu Collective Agreement were illegal, and that the KGEU chapter had lost its standing to negotiate valid collective agreements due to the criminal charges and disciplinary action against its Chairperson. They add that, since May 2023, the mayor had ceased all negotiations with the union and refused to convene any labour-management consultation meetings.
15. 530. The complainants assert that in July 2022, only five days after taking office, the mayor of the Songpa-gu district announced the abolition of the collective agreement with local government employees, claiming that it violated the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials Trade Unions (hereinafter, the Public Officials Labour Union Act). Following the single person demonstrations and press conferences urging the mayor to honour the agreement, the mayor accused the union of historically coercing unlawful collective agreements and pressured senior officials to sign an official statement condemning the KGEU. After denouncing unionism among government employees as illegal, the mayor sent an email to all district office employees in August 2022 asserting grade 6 team leaders were ineligible for union membership, thereby pressuring managerial employees to withdraw from the KGEU. The mayor issued another public letter in October 2022 banning managerial civil servants from attending KGEU assemblies and threatened disciplinary actions. The complainants claim that as a result, nearly 500 of the 1,400 KGEU members in the chapter left the union, causing damage to the operations of that self-governed union. The complainants report that, in April 2023, the National Labour Relations Commission found that the Songpa-gu Office had engaged in unfair labour practices in connection with the official statement signed by 234 senior employees. According to the complainants, the Commission highlighted the following sentences from the statement: “The three union executives who continued their unlawful strike actions while still employed by the Songpa-gu Office … must take responsibility and resign from their positions” and “The Mayor of Songpa-gu must ensure that the three union executives have to pay their price”. The complainants state that the Commission considered this language to be threatening and a deliberate attempt to interfere with union operations, and that it also noted that 148 members withdrew their membership from the union around the time the statements were released, a figure 21 times greater than the total number of seven members who withdrew their membership in the preceding seven months. The complainants further state that, in this context, the National Labour Relations Commission determined that grade 6 officials could not be classified as part of management and were therefore eligible to join unions. According to the complainants, the Commission found that these employees lack the authority or responsibility to issue orders, instructions, or supervision to lower-level staff. Moreover, they assert that the Commission determined that grade 6 team leaders are categorized as “officials in charge” alongside lower-grade employees, in accordance with Songpa-gu’s own administrative approval and decision-making procedures. The complainants further state that, in light of the National Labour Relations Commission’s findings relating to grade 6 officials, the Songpa Police Station dismissed the criminal charges filed by the Songpa gu Office against employees for union activities, including their participation in lunchtime rallies and single-person protest actions.
16. 531. The complainants provide comprehensive information on the organization of the Korean local government system and assert that grade 6 team leaders have limited authority and responsibility in this system. According to the complainants, these government employees serve in the lowest-level divisions of metropolitan and regional governments and usually do not hold any formal titles. They claim that the role of grade 6 team leaders is mainly to execute tasks assigned by higher authorities and handle minor reports or complaints. Even when designated as team leaders, the complainants argue that grade 6 team leaders are still considered equal to their teammates and do not participate in decision-making or policy planning (emphasizing that even grade 5 head of divisions do not have such powers). The complainants further assert that team leaders cannot direct how teammates perform their duties, approve leave requests, or evaluate performance. They state that evaluation authority begins at the grade-5 division head level, and only higher-ranking officials (grade 4 and above) can decide on evaluations. In their view, team leaders form part of the working-level staff, do not exercise supervisory or managerial authority, and do not act as representatives of the employer. The complainants criticize that while the Public Officials Labour Union Act was amended in January 2021 to remove a “grade-based ban”, that is the prohibition of civil servants in grade 6 and higher to join trade unions, the Act still restricts union membership for civil servants whose “main duties” involve exercising “supervision and instruction over other government employees”. Moreover, according to the complainants , the MOEL had continued to interpret this provision broadly, categorically limiting union membership for grade 6 team leaders: In its 2021 Labour Relations Manual, the Ministry had endorsed the interpretation that grade 6 civil servants usually overseeing small teams of four or five members, who simply track and relay documentation and communications to their superiors, but do not manage staff or hold decision-making powers should still be considered “managers with supervisory powers” due to their duty to act as directors in their superior’s absence. The complainants assert that the mayors of Jongno-gu and Songpa-gu had used this interpretation to prevent the unionization of all grade 6 team leaders, without examining whether their duties actually involve a supervisory role. The complainants indicate that in fact, in Songpa-gu and Jongno gu, each department manages multiple programmes, each managed by a team of four to five civil servants. A grade 6 team manager handles programme duties, assists and manages the performance of fellow teammates and reports to higher-level department or section chiefs who have the authority to make final decisions. They add that grade 6 team leaders act at best as intermediaries with minimal managerial involvement, being at the lowest level of the managerial hierarchy.
17. 532. The complainants argue that these actions restrict the right to organize for certain categories of government officials, as protected under Article 2 of Convention No. 87. They further contend that the above-mentioned actions amount to anti-union discrimination under Article 1 of Convention No. 98, interference in trade union affairs as addressed in Article 2 of Convention No. 98, and infringements of the obligation to promote and encourage voluntary negotiation, as provided for in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. In this respect, the complainants also claim that the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea cannot be relied on, as done by the Government, for restrictions on basic labour rights of government employees as guaranteed by Conventions Nos 87 and 98, and that this is also not in conformity with the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, which found that while the Constitution protects the political impartiality of public servants, it does not authorize the State to restrict the constitutional rights to which public officials are entitled as citizens.
18. 533. Concerning the alleged non-compliance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, the complainants submit that Convention No. 87 should extend to all categories of public servants, including grade 6 team leaders. In this respect, the complainants refer to Case No. 1865, Report No. 309, paragraph 144, in which the Committee noted with concern, that:
    • … large categories of public servants are excluded from joining … workplace councils. Hence, public servants from grades 1 to 5 will be excluded from workplace councils … . Finally, public servants involved in …, budgeting and accounting, … supervising general service staff, … will also not be entitled to join workplace councils. … The Committee would therefore request the Government to consider extending the right of association … to all … categories of public servants who should enjoy this right in accordance with freedom of association principles.
19. Moreover, the complainants refer to Case No. 1865, Report No. 335, paragraph 816:
    • As regards public servants at Grade 5 or higher, the Committee recalls that it is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association principles to deny managerial or supervisory employees the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers, on condition that two requirements are met: first, that such workers have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and, second, that the categories of such staff are not defined so broadly as to weaken the organizations of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the total exclusion from the legislation of public servants at Grade 5 or higher is a violation of their fundamental right to organize.
20. The complainants also refer to the following passage in Case No. 1865, Report No. 346, paragraph 741:
    • … public officials of all grades (Grade 5 or higher or Grade 6 or lower), are not excluded from the scope of freedom of association principles; on the contrary, all public employees (with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police, by virtue of Article 9 of Convention No. 87) should, like workers in the private sector, be able to establish organizations of their own choosing to further and defend the interests of their members [Digest, op. cit., para. 220]. The exclusion found in Convention No. 151 with regard to policy decision-makers or high ranking public officials relates to the issue of collective bargaining and not to the right to organize which should be guaranteed to all public officials without distinction. Nevertheless, as concerns persons exercising senior managerial or policy-making responsibilities, the Committee is of the opinion that while theses public servants may be barred from joining trade unions which represent other workers, such restrictions should be strictly limited to this category of workers, and they should be entitled to establish their own organizations.
21. In this respect, the complainants, referring to paragraph 1198 of the Compilation, considers that “any coercion of workers of trade union officers to revoke their union membership constitutes a violation of the principle of freedom of association, in violation of Convention No. 87”.
22. 534. Concerning the alleged non-compliance with Article 1 of Convention No. 98, the complainants argue that in addition to pressuring grade 6 civil servants to leave the KGEU, the following actions also constitute acts of anti-union discrimination: disciplinary measures for organizing activities demanding the fulfilment of the existing collective agreements, including the demotion of a union officer of her position as team leader, and the reassignment of three union officers to other positions and departments. As regards non-compliance with Article 2 of Convention No. 98, the complainants, basing themselves on paragraphs 1200 and 1202 of the Compilation, as well as Case No. 1865, Report No. 346, paragraph 788, maintain that the following actions constitute interference in trade union activities: falsely denouncing an existing collective agreement as illegal, groundlessly accusing the KGEU of unlawful activities, and drafting a misleading statement criticizing the union to tarnish the KGEU’s reputation, and pressuring executive level officials and union members with specific positions into endorsing that statement. In addition to these issues the complainants, referring to paragraphs 1101 and 1234 of the Compilation, maintain that the refusal to comply with existing collective agreements and to negotiate new ones infringe the obligation to promote and encourage voluntary negotiation in Article 4 of Convention No. 98.
23. 3. The Ministry’s orders to alter provisions in collective agreements concluded between local governments and trade unions
24. 535. The complainants state that in February 2023, the MOEL released a “Plan for Correcting Unlawful Collective Agreements with Public Officials’ Trade Unions”. They assert that the Ministry’s position is that provisions such as included in the 2021 collective agreement between the local government of Songpa-gu and the relevant KGEU chapter are invalid and excluded from collective bargaining, pursuant to the Public Officials Labour Union Act, including: (1) provisions that provide for precedence of the collective agreement over conflicting governmental guides and orders; (2) the requirement to protect basic labour rights, including the right to collective action, consultation and basic political rights; and (3) issues not directly related to the working conditions of civil servants, such as running national or local governments, making policy decisions and appointing officials.
25. 536. The complainants state that since announcing the plan, the Ministry had reviewed all 479 collective agreements in the public sector, finding 179 to be contrary to the Public Officials Labour Union Act. They add that by June 2023, the Ministry had ordered 136 public institutions to correct their agreements following the review by the Labour Relations Commissions, including 80 which concerned agreements concluded between government employee unions and local governments, encompassing 263 provisions and 19 addendums. They add that the Ministry had threatened to take criminal proceedings against institutions failing to comply, and that non-compliance with a Ministry’s correction order is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of 5,000,0000 South Korean won (approximately US$3,800), which the Ministry uses to force labour and management to alter their voluntarily negotiated collective agreements against their will. The complainants state that some government employee unions and local governments had indeed faced criminal investigations for non-compliance, while others had reluctantly accepted unfair correction orders out of fear of criminal proceedings. The complainants indicate that the Ministry had also ordered corrections of 10 articles in the collective agreement signed between the National Court Administration and its union in August 2023, which they argue is an indication that correction orders by the Ministry to collective agreements concluded between government employee unions and public institutions are likely to continue.
26. 537. The complainants assert that all provisions ordered by the MOEL to be removed from the collective agreements between unions and local governments directly impact employees’ working conditions, encompassing issues such as personnel, welfare, and remuneration, and that the Ministry had required the correction of all provisions in collective agreements that even hinted at impacting the institution’s “policies”, “personnel”, “budgets” and “operations”, regardless of how those provisions affected employees’ working conditions.
27. 538. The complainants state that the Ministry ordered the highest number of revisions to the 2021 Collective Agreement of Songpa-gu, and provides a list of the relevant provisions:

    • Provisions corrected

      Article 2 [Precedence of Collective Agreement] (3) This Agreement shall take precedence over any guides or orders that run contrary to it.

      Article 4 [Prior consultation] Prior to deciding and implementing measures that may pertain to the working conditions of employees, including their remuneration, welfare, and employment, as well as their union activities, the Employer shall first consult and obtain the agreement of the Union.

      Article 10 [Guarantee of Policial Freedoms and Rights for Civil Servants] The Employer shall strive to guarantee and protect, as much as permitted by circumstances, the basic political freedoms and rights of civil servants in its employment.

      Article 19 [Treatment of Union Officers] (1) Before making personnel decisions pertaining to Union officers (including Steering Committee members and persons dispatched to umbrella organizations), the Employer shall first consult and obtain the agreement of the Union, and actively consider any difficulties such Union officers might face in performing their Union duties due to their workload, etc.

      Article 20 [Recognition of Union Officers’ Activities] (1) The Employer shall strive to ensure that Union officers be able to perform their Union duties by minimizing their workload and/or through such measures as necessary and subject to consultation with the Union.

      Article 21 [Prior Consultation on Welfare Budgets] Prior to preparing the budget for the welfare of Union members, the Employer shall first consult the Union.

      Article 36 [Reporting and Counselling on Workplace Harassment] (1) The Employer shall provide a channel through which employees may report, and/or seek counselling, on workplace harassment that they experience/witness. The Employer shall also first consult the Union before deciding whether to convene an investigation committee, and guarantee Union members’ representation on such committees. (3) The Union management shall respond in a cooperative and coordinated manner to any instances of harassment and abuse of power, including intervention in personnel decisions, asking of personal favours, and dehumanization of employees by internal and external parties alike.

      Article 39 [Reform of Auditing Process] The Employer shall ensure fair and equitable audits and inspections of its activities. When auditing union members and if the audited institution or person request union’s observation, this shall be guaranteed.

      Article 42 (Prohibition of Comparison of Performances] The Employer shall refrain from comparing different departments or teams in terms of integrity, government evaluation results, purchasing records, promptness of budget executions, and other indicators of performances. The Employer shall first consult the Union before deciding to publish the results of its evaluations.

      Article 45 (Abolition of Work Ethic Checks) The Employer shall abolish the mandatory checks on the work ethic and attitude of employees, leaving it up to the heads of departments to monitor or review subordinates’ work attitude. Where such checks become necessary in extraordinary circumstances, the Employer shall first consult the Union before initiating such checks.

      Article 47 (Improvement of Working Conditions for Non-Regular Workers) (2) In consultation with the Union, the Employer shall establish and implement plans to convert and regularize the status of increasing numbers of non-regular workers in its employment. (3) As part of efforts to ensure the security of employment and extend their terms by three years each time. (4) In extending the labour contracts of fixed-term workers that have worked five years, the Employer shall ensure that they are given the option of working the next five years.

      Article 48 [Restriction on Outsourcing] The Employer shall refrain from increasing the amount of work and services outsourced to external and/or private contractors. Where such outsourcing is necessary, the Employer shall first consult the Union and obtain its approval.

      Article 49 [Consultation on Organizational Restructuring] Should the Employer need to re-establish or amend its bylaws and rules due to changes in the organizational structure – including increases or decreases in the quota of employees – the Employer shall first consult and obtain the agreement of the Union.

      Article 50 [Personnel Exchange] In deciding personnel exchanges with other institutions, the Employer shall consider the overall state of personnel management and workload and limit such exchanges or transfers to only volunteering personnel, while ensuring, through prior consultation with the Union, that any such exchanges or transfers would not disadvantage Union members.

      Article 83 [Principle of Remuneration] The Employer shall strive to pay wages to Union members that are necessary to enable Union members and their families to maintain a decent living. The Employer shall first consult the Union before deciding, modifying, or appropriating budgets for Union members’ welfare.

      Article 85 [Travel Allowances] (1) The Employer shall amend the bylaws and rules so that employees will be paid KRW20,000 for each hour they spend on official duty outside their workplace.

      Article 88 [On-Call Duty Allowances] The Employer shall strive to pay KRW80,000 for each day or night each employee spends on call.

      Article 89 [Annual Leaves and Compensation] The Employer shall ensure that each employee is entitled to at least 17 days’ worth of annual leave pays. The Employer shall first consult the Union before making changes to the budget for compensation for annual leaves not taken.

      Article 108 [Promotion of Women’s Rights] (2) Pursuant to section 12 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, the Employer shall prohibit any and all forms of sexual harassment, including verbal, physical, and visual kinds. Any offender found to have committed sexual harassment, sexual violence, and/or verbal/physical abuse may be reviewed by the Discipline Committee upon request from either the victim or Union members authorized by the victim. During the investigation, the Employer shall ensure that the victim is protected by keeping them sequestered from the offender, with paid leaves where necessary. To investigate and review allegations of sexual harassment and violence, the Employer shall appoint a sexual harassment and violence review committee that includes two Union-nominated persons among members.

      >
28. 539. The complainants also provide a list of other provisions ordered removed from collective agreements concluded between the KGEU and other local governments, including provisions concerning consultation on employee benefits and staffing (which the complainants allege affect the workload of employees), restructuring or transfers of personnel:

    • Local government/employer	Provisions ordered to be removed
      Geoje City Hall, Gyeongnam	Article 18 (Prior Consultation on Welfare Budgets) The union may request that the city prepare a budget related to the welfare of union members, and the city shall consult with the union to accommodate the union’s budget-related requests. Article 44 (Prior Agreement before Restructuring) Before undertaking any restructuring that may directly affect the working conditions of union members – such as personnel reductions – the city shall consider the union’s opinion and implement it in a reasonable manner.
      Jin-gu Office, Busan Metropolitan City	Article 2 (Precedence of Agreement) (3) With respect to any guidelines, orders, or other directives concerning the working conditions of union members that fail to satisfy this Agreement, the employer and the union shall enter into consultation, giving precedence to the terms of this Agreement. Article 34 (Improving the Personnel Committee’s procedure) Where a personnel committee convenes to discipline an employee, and the employee requests the presence of a union representative, the employer shall accommodate the request. Article 42 (Personnel Exchange between the Metropolitan and Municipal Governments): Prior to establishing criteria for the exchange or transfer of personnel that directly affect the working conditions of union members, the employer shall consult with the union. Article 18 (Prior Consultation on Welfare Budgets) Prior to preparing a welfare budget for union members, the employer shall consult with the union. Article 76 (Adjustment of Personalized Welfare Points) (2) When determining the details of personalized welfare programs, including welfare points, the employer shall take the union’s opinion into account to the greatest extent possible.
      Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education	Article 2 (Precedence of Agreement) (2) Any ordinances or regulations that conflict with this Agreement shall be revised or amended accordingly. (3) This Agreement shall take precedence over any guidelines, regulations, or other directives that are inconsistent with its provisions. Article 4 (Prior Consultation) (2) Before making or implementing decisions that may affect the working conditions of union members – including matters related to union operations, remuneration, and welfare – the Office shall consult with the union in advance. (3) Before revising or amending ordinances, rules, or other regulations related to the working conditions or socioeconomic status of union members, the affected division(s) shall inform and consult with the union in advance. Article 33 (Consultation on Restructuring) Before revising or amending ordinances, rules, or other regulations related to the restructuring of the Office’s organization that may affect the working conditions or socioeconomic status of union members, the affected division(s) shall inform and consult with the union in advance. Article 39 (Personnel Rules) (4) Where it is necessary to alter the total number of employees the Office may hire, the Office shall consult with the union and endeavour to implement balanced and reasonable changes. Article 15 (Management of Employee Welfare Programs) Before operating or managing employee welfare programs, the Office shall consult with the union in advance.
      Gangdong-gu Office, Seoul Metropolitan City	Article 20 (Prior Consultation on Welfare Budgets) When preparing a welfare budget for union members, the employer shall consult with the union and make reasonable efforts to accommodate the preferences of the union and its members. Article 23 (Improving On-Duty Work) (3) The employer shall assign and manage dedicated on-duty personnel to improve the working conditions of employees working daytime and nighttime shifts. Article 43 (Hiring and Maintaining Sufficient Personnel) The employer shall increase the total number of employees that can be hired and shall make every effort to recruit and hire additional personnel without delay, in accordance with organizational and administrative needs.

      >
29. 540. The complainants add that the provisions ordered by the MOEL to be removed from collective agreements between the KGEU and other local governments also pertained to trade union activities. They provide examples of such provisions, including those related to consultation on the transfer or reposting of union executives – decisions which, according to the complainants, affect the stability of employment of union officials, and therefore have a direct impact on trade union activities:

    • Local government/employer	Provisions ordered to be removed
      Yangpyeong County Hall, Gyeonggi-do	Article 13 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) To ensure the stable and uninterrupted operation of the union, the county shall consult with the union prior to transferring union executives, including the chairperson, vice-chairperson(s), general secretary, and executives dispatched to upper-level organizations.
      Geoje City Hall, Gyeongnam	Article 15 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) The city shall consult with the union prior to making any personnel decisions concerning union executives, including both union officers and those dispatched to upper-level organizations. (2) Departments employing union chapter heads and general secretaries shall endeavour to recruit and hire additional personnel.
      Gimhae City Hall, Gyeongnam	Article 14 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) The city shall endeavour to accommodate the union’s requests regarding personnel decisions affecting union executives, including full-time executives, steering committee members, and those dispatched to upper-level organizations. (2) Departments employing union chapter heads and secretaries-general shall endeavour to recruit and hire additional personnel.
      Yangsang City Hall, Gyeongnam	Article 14 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) The city shall make personnel decisions concerning union executives in a manner that does not disrupt the operation of the union.
      Gijang County Office, Busan Metropolitan City	Article 14 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) The county shall ensure the stability of union activities by consulting with the union in advance regarding personnel decisions affecting union executives (including steering committee members, delegates, and those dispatched to upper-level organizations, etc.). (3) The county shall consult with the union chapter to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the chapter head and the general secretary.
      Seongdong-gu Office, Seoul Metropolitan City	Article 14 (Personnel Decisions and Treatment Regarding Union Executives) (1) The Office shall consult with the union in advance regarding personnel decisions affecting union executives (steering committee members and those dispatched to upper-level organizations, etc.). (2) Where a union executive (a steering committee member, etc.) requests a transfer to another division due to difficulties in carrying out union activities arising from the demands of their current division, the Office shall consult with the union and endeavour to accommodate the request.

      >
30. 541. The complainants indicate that most of the regional offices of employment and labour across the Republic of Korea accepted the MOEL’s claim that the provisions ordered for correction do not comply with sections 8(1) or 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, except for the Chungbuk regional office of employment of labour, deciding in August 2023, that the disputed provisions in the collective agreement concluded with the KGEU did not warrant a corrective order.
31. 542. The complainants further state that the provisions as listed below in the 2022 collective agreement concluded between the Hoengseong County Office and the respective chapter of the KGEU, and ordered for correction, are subject to a lawsuit. In this regard, the complainants indicate that while the Chuncheon District Court dismissed the application filed by the KGEU chapter to overturn the corrective order, the Seoul High Court partially reversed the order, finding that article 46(1) of the agreement affected employees’ working conditions. The complainants add that the case was under review in May 2025 by the Korean Supreme Court following a subsequent appeal by the KGEU chapter.

    • Provisions corrected

      Article 37 (Personnel Rules) (4) The county shall clearly explain to union members the reasons for any special appointments. (5) The county shall adopt and implement a quota for the appointment of women to senior-level positions at grade 5 or higher. (6) The county shall consult with representatives of each employee grade in advance and shall actively endeavour to accommodate their requests prior to making major personnel decisions.

      Article 41 (Multifaceted Performance Evaluations) (1) In promoting employees to senior-level positions at grade 5 or higher, the county shall conduct multifaceted performance evaluations and exclude from consideration for promotion those who rank in the bottom 20 percent. (2) The methods, evaluation rubric, and other details of the multifaceted performance evaluations shall be determined by the management–labour committee through mutual consultation.

      Article 43 (Job Rotation and Accommodation of Employers’ Needs) (1) While the county may implement job rotations to enhance the efficiency and fairness of its organizational operations, it shall ensure equitable implementation across divisions across divisions and allow government employees at grade 6 and below to remain in their current positions. (2) The county shall endeavour to improve working conditions for divisions with heavy workloads and shall provide preferential treatment for employees who work in such divisions for two years or more by allowing them to transfer to divisions of their preference, where feasible.

      Article 46 (Restructuring) (1) Prior to restructuring its organization in ways that directly affect employees’ working conditions (e.g., increases or decreases in personnel), the county shall consult with the union and employees in advance and shall endeavour to reach reasonable decisions. (2) As part of its efforts to enhance the efficiency of policy implementation and ensure rational oversight of management and personnel in anticipation of foreseeable administrative innovations, the county may conduct biannual organizational performance evaluations and publish the results for all employees to access. (3) Such organization-wide performance evaluations shall reflect the opinions of the union members.

      >
32. 543. Regarding the collective agreement concluded in August 2023 between the KGEU Courts Division and the National Court Administration, the complainants assert that the corrective order issued in relation to the provisions listed below, is the subject of legal proceedings. They add that the KGEU has filed a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the corrective order and requested an injunction against the corrective order’s enforcement, which was granted by the Seoul Administrative Court in May 2024 temporarily halting its implementation.

    • Provisions corrected

      Article 3 (Introduction of Additional Allowance for Trial Work) The court shall endeavour to introduce an additional allowance for performing trial work for the criminal trial division(s).

      Article 5 (Introduction of Additional Allowance for Warrant Work) The court shall endeavour to introduce an additional allowance for warrant work performed by court officials who are not designated as warrant specialists.

      Article 6 (Expanding the Scope of Reimbursements for Expenses of Investigation and Evidence Collection) The court shall endeavour to expand the scope of employees eligible to claim reimbursements for expenses incurred during trial-related investigations and evidence collection, to include those in grades 8 and 9 as well.

      Article 8 (Reducing Workload on Registrars) The court shall endeavour to reduce the workload of registrars, including by allowing them to issue and send correction orders via text message, even in cases filed by individuals other than judicial scriveners.

      Article 9 (Improving Record Disposal Work) The court shall actively increase and allocate budgets to minimize the excessive mobilization of employees’ labour for the disposal of court records.

      Article 12 (Improving Working Conditions at Municipal Courts and Registry Offices) The court shall make efforts to secure and allocate sufficient budgetary resources to ensure that employees of municipal and county courts, as well as registry offices, are not required to perform non-judicial maintenance tasks, such as groundskeeping or cleaning their work environments.

      Article 22 (Improving Self-Development Leaves) Pursuant to the applicable regulations and laws, the court shall recognize the amount of time that a term-based employee has spent as a temporary worker as part of the period of service required for requesting a self-development leave where the employee has changed their status as a regular civil servant without discontinuing their career.

      Agreement with the Family Court Division at the Gwangju High Court Article 9 (Improving Working Conditions for Employees in Managerial Ranks) (3) Where employees in managerial positions spend time on official business travel that exceeds their standard working hours, the court shall recognize the excess hours as overtime work, in accordance with applicable labor regulations.

      Agreement with different divisions of the Gwangju High Court Article 11 (Budget Support for Record Disposal Work) The court shall actively increase and provide budgets so as to minimize the excessive mobilization of employees’ labour for the disposal of court records.

      >
33. 544. The complainants further indicate that in September and October 2023, the MOEL had distributed a letter entitled “What to Look Out for Before Signing Collective Agreements” to the local chapters of the KGEU and 27 local governments, in which collective agreements were waiting to be drawn up. The letter indicated that any provisions in collective agreements contradicting section 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act were legally invalid and could not be enforced, and that they should not be used in future instances of collective bargaining, particularly regarding provisions entitling workers to participate in union activities during working hours, and those granting a special holiday on International Workers’ Day. This had caused concern among unionized civil servants and local governments about potential repercussions. The complainants consider this to be an attempt to undermine free bargaining by curtailing the rights of employers and employees to decide what matters to discuss and negotiate, as well as an undue form of pressure and influence on labour relations in the public sector likely to create conflicts in labour-management relations. The complainants indicate that in its letter, the Ministry referred to the following provisions:

    • Article 0 [Guarantee of Union Activities] The Employer shall guarantee the freedom of the Union and its members to engage in Union activities, allowing them to participate in the following categories of activities during working hours: 1. Attending the general congress, the representatives’ congress, the operating committee meetings, and other meetings necessary for Union decisions; 2. Attending labour-management consultation meetings and collective bargaining sessions (including accompanying, observing, and photo opportunities); 3. Auditing Union books and handling members’ complaints; 4. Attending training retreats, education, cultural activities, and sporting events organized by the Union; 5. Attending meetings and events organized by higher-level Union organizations; 6. Participating in Union elections and related activities; 7. Attending other activities and events as agreed upon between the Employer and the Union; and 8. Participating in departmental tours and roundtables with Union officers. Article 0 [Taking the International Workers’ Day Off] The Employer shall grant employees a special holiday on International Workers’ Day (May 1) and provide alternative paid holidays for Union members who are unable to take that day off.

      >
34. 545. The complainants indicate that when ordering the correction of existing collective agreements between government employee unions and local governments, the MOEL based itself on the following legislative provisions: sections 8(1) and 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, as well as section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act which read as follows:
    • Section 8 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act [Bargaining and Signing Authorities, etc.]
    • (1) The representatives of a trade union reserve the power to negotiate and sign, on behalf of their union and/or its members, collective agreements on remuneration, welfare, and other terms and conditions of employment with the representatives of Government, who may include … the Mayor of Seoul, the mayors of metropolitan cities, the mayors of special self-governing cities, the governors of provinces, the governors of special self-governing provinces, the mayors of cities, the mayors of towns, the mayors of self-governing districts or boroughs, and … . Matters of policy decisions, which the State or local governments reserve the right to implement pursuant to the law, and matters related to the management and operation of given institutions (e.g., the right to appoint teachers) that do not directly pertain to employment terms and conditions are excluded from the scope of bargaining.
    • Section 10 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act [Effect of Collective Agreements]
    • (1) Terms of collective agreements entered pursuant to section 9, which are subject to statutes, bylaws, ordinances, and/or budgetary decisions, shall not be binding as terms of collective agreements.
    • (2) Government representatives shall strive to the best of their ability to ensure that terms of collective agreements, which lack binding force pursuant to Paragraph (1), are still implemented and fulfilled whenever possible.
    • Section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Labour Union Act [Non negotiable Matters]
    • Matters of policy decisions and the management and operation of institutions, barred from collective bargaining by section 8(1) of the Act, include the following:
    • 1. Policymaking and decision-making, such as the development and drafting of policy programs;
    • 2. The exercise of the right of appointment, including the hiring, promotion, and transfer of public officials;
    • 3. The organization and size of the employer institution;
    • 4. Budgets and funds, and their execution;
    • 5. Litigation and disputes (including objections or appeals) involving the employer institution; and
    • 6. Other matters related to the management and operation of the employer institution.
35. 546. The complainants argue that the above-mentioned legislative provisions, and the MOEL´s actions run contrary to free and voluntary bargaining in Article 4 of Convention No. 98, as well as the right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes in full freedom in Article 3 of Convention No. 87. Section 8 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of that Act place a blanket ban on the scope of matters that can be negotiated collectively insofar as they pertain to policy decisions and/or management of employer institutions without allowing for any discussions on how these matters might affect the working conditions of employees. The complainants refer to paragraphs 1234 and 1422, as well as to Case No. 1865, Report No. 346, paragraph 747, and which provided that:
    • … In the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes “policy decisions of the State” and the “management and operation of government business”, and in the light of the blanket prohibition of negotiations over these matters introduced in the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Trade Unions, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in so far as concerns the application of the Act to public servants who cannot be properly considered as engaged in the administration of the State, the consequences of policy and management decisions as they relate to the conditions of employment of public employees, are not excluded from negotiations with public employees’ trade unions.
36. Concerning section 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, the complainants allege that that provision categorically denies the legitimacy of collective agreements where their terms required the enactment of additional statutes, by-laws, ordinances, or other such legislative acts for their fulfilment, insofar as that provision suggests that agreements could always be overturned or frustrated by leaving it up to the discretion of employers (namely local governments) to decide whether or not to take the necessary actions to honour the terms of those agreements. The complainants express the view that the autonomy of unions and their employers in negotiating collective agreements under Convention No. 98 required employers (local governments, etc.) to ensure that all necessary administrative and legislative follow-up measures were undertaken to ensure the preparation of laws and budgets necessary to fulfil the terms of their agreements and refer to paragraph 45 of Case No. 1865, Report No. 363, wherein the Committee had recommended that the Government amend section 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act to ensure that:
    • … the autonomy of the bargaining parties is fully guaranteed and the reservation of budgetary powers to the legislative authority does not have the effect of preventing compliance with collective agreements; more generally, as regards negotiations on matters for which budgetary restrictions pertain, to ensure that a significant role is given to collective bargaining and that agreements are negotiated and implemented in good faith.
37. 547. Referring to paragraphs 1313, 1314 and 1317 of the Compilation, the complainants emphasize that the process of collective bargaining under Convention No. 98 should be free, voluntary and respectful of the autonomies of the parties, including the freedom of the parties to negotiate and determine, through mutual understanding, the scope and terms of their collective agreements without “any undue interference” by public authorities. They add, while referring to paragraph 1480 of the Compilation, that the public authorities should not prevent the application of freely concluded collective agreements, particularly when these authorities are acting as employers or have assumed responsibility for the application of agreements by countersigning them. Concerning the scope of collective bargaining in the public sector, the complainants consider, referring to paragraph 1289, 1290 and 1424 of the Compilation, that it is for the parties concerned to decide on the subjects for negotiation, and that measures taken unilaterally by the authorities to restrict the scope of negotiable issues are often incompatible with Convention No. 98. Referring to paragraphs 1304 and 1301 of the Compilation, including as regards collective bargaining in relation to policy decisions insofar as those decisions can have “consequences for conditions of employment” and the larger spectrum of job security, the complainants assert that there are no matters of policymaking or governance that automatically preclude collective bargaining with government employees when such matters determine the general framework for employees’ working conditions. The complainants also refer to paragraphs 1293 and 1298 of the Compilation concerning legislation excluding certain matters from the scope of collective bargaining.

B. The Government’s reply

The KGEU’s referendum

Cases of the Jongno-gu Office and the Songpa-gu Office

Collective bargaining and interference in collective agreements

1. 548. In its communication dated 20 April 2025, the Government provides a detailed reply to the complainants’ allegations, outlining the unique characteristics of the Korean system and elaborating on particular key issues.
2. 549. The Government explains that in the Republic of Korea, as in many other countries, government employees-who serve the public as a whole-have a unique duty to uphold the public interest. The Republic of Korea has developed a civil service system tailored to the general characteristics of public service, the country’s historical context, and its specific national circumstances. Accordingly, government employees are granted a distinct legal status, with rights and responsibilities that differ from those of general workers. These distinctions are defined through relevant legislation, including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the State Public Officials Act, the Local Public Officials Act, and the Public Officials Labour Union Act.
3. 550. The Korean civil service system has evolved to balance two core values: the political neutrality required of government employees as servants of the entire public, and their political freedom as ordinary citizens. The Government also emphasizes that it has consistently taken steps to expand the political freedoms of government employees over time.
4. 551. The Korean civil service system gradually evolved into a career-based system, going through the period of US military rule and the establishment of the Korean Government after liberation. In 1963, the State Public Officials Act was newly enacted from scratch in the context of a divided nation and the growing need for strong leadership and expertise in the civil service to drive rapid economic growth. This Act introduced a career civil service system grounded in two core principles: political neutrality-to ensure that government employees neither represent nor are influenced by specific political forces and high levels of professional expertise, supported by legally protected status for government employees. These principles have been upheld to this day.
5. 552. The Korean career civil service system is characterized by the following features. First, it ensures continuity in administrative operations regardless of government transitions by providing a highly stable and secure status. Second, it minimizes political influence through strict procedures and criteria governing personnel administration, including the hiring, promotion, and assignment of government employees. Third, government employees are required to perform their duties in accordance with the law, with a strong commitment to serving the public interest free from political bias.
6. 553. As this demonstrates, the Korean career civil service system requires political neutrality from government employees while ensuring that their status is strongly protected by law. Accordingly, government employees are not subject to general labour laws, such as the Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act, which apply to general workers. The rights and interests of government employees, including their stable status, protected working conditions, and a separate pension system, are more securely guaranteed through laws like the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act. These fundamental principles are clearly outlined in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
7. 554. The Republic of Korea continues to make efforts to uphold both the political neutrality of government employees and their political freedom to the greatest extent possible. However, due to the limitation of having to strike a balance between these two values-arising from the career civil service system that reflects the unique characteristics of Korean society, government employees cannot be guaranteed the same level of political freedom as general workers. This limitation should be considered in light of the fact that government employees benefit from stronger protections of their status compared to general workers.
8. 555. Government employees have a unique responsibility to deliver essential public services to the entire population. Any suspension of these services can directly impact public safety and infringe upon the basic rights of the people. Many public services-particularly those involving policing and firefighting-have no viable alternatives, meaning that strikes or industrial action in these sectors could paralyze core state functions. This means that efforts by government employees to assert their own basic rights may, in turn, deprive the general public of their basic rights.
9. 556. More importantly, the Republic of Korea is grappling with complex societal challenges, including a low birth rate, a super-aged population, the depopulation of rural areas, and growing concerns over senior welfare. These circumstances call for a greater and more urgent demand for public services. In this context, the administrative gap caused by collective actions of government employees could have particularly serious consequences for disadvantaged groups. Therefore, the issue of guaranteeing fundamental labour rights to government employees must be approached with caution and balance, taking into account the potential deprivation of basic rights for vulnerable members of society.
10. 557. Considering all of these factors, article 33.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly guarantees the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action. However, article 33.2 provides that, in the case of government employees, these three fundamental labour rights shall be recognized only for those specified by law. Accordingly, the Public Officials Labour Union Act has been enacted to guarantee the fundamental labour rights of government employees. This Act ensures the right of government employees to engage in union activities while setting necessary limitations to prevent actions that would conflict with their legal obligations under other statutes. It also specifically defines the scope of government employees eligible to join a union and the matters that may be addressed through collective bargaining. Specifically, section 6(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act permits union membership for general service officials and those in extraordinary civil service positions. Section 6(2), however, prohibits union membership for government employees whose primary duties involve directing or supervising other government employees, managing administrative tasks of other government employees, or handling human resources, compensation, or labour relations – including mediation and oversight – functions that are considered incompatible with the status of a union member. In addition, section 8 stipulates that union representatives have the right to engage in collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements concerning union-related matters, as well as the compensation, welfare, and other working conditions of union members. However, it also states that matters involving the policy decisions of the Government or local municipalities-made pursuant to their statutory authority, and matters related to the management and operation of the organization that are not directly connected to working conditions, such as personnel appointments, shall not be subject to collective bargaining. The specific scope of union membership and permissible subjects of collective bargaining are further detailed in the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
11. 558. These provisions have been validated by the Constitutional Court in 2008 which has stated that since the Constitution delegates the regulation of the three fundamental labour rights of government employees to legislation, the National Assembly has legislative discretion to consider all relevant factors, including the civil service system shaped by the Republic of Korea’s unique history and culture, the rights and interests of all stakeholders, and the distinct status of government employees as servants of the entire population.
12. 559. In line with this, the Government recalls that the Committee has itself consistently recognized that the rights to collective bargaining and to strike may be granted to government employees to a limited extent, in consideration of their exceptional status and cites a number of paragraphs from the Compilation.
13. 560. Following the ratification of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 in April 2021, the Government undertook significant revisions to the labour legislation to align with these Conventions. For example, the Public Officials Labour Union Act was amended to remove rank-based restrictions on union membership for government employees. The revision now allows government employees in firefighting and education, as well as retired public officials, to join unions.
14. 561. Furthermore, an amendment to the State Public Officials Act was proposed in June 2024 and is currently under review in the National Assembly to expand the political freedoms of government employees. The proposed changes include allowing public officials to join political parties and easing restrictions on their participation in election campaigns. Nevertheless, the freedom of association granted to government employees is not an unlimited right. Public officials engaged in union activities must always remember that they are both union members and servants of the public. Above all, it is essential to emphasize that they must comply with existing laws while carrying out union activities. The Government refers to legislation in some other countries to demonstrate that other civil service systems have also made similar balances of rights and placed restrictions on the public service.
15. 562. As regards more specifically the allegations concerning the intervention and retaliatory action taken against KGEU members for the policy referendum held from 22 to 24 November 2022, the Government recalls the issues as they are set out in the complaint however contends that they violate several legal provisions. It refers to the Public Officials Labour Union Act which specifically defines the categories of government employees eligible for union membership and the matters that may be addressed through collective bargaining.
16. 563. In line with the characterization outlined above of the importance of political neutrality in the civil service, the Government recalls that section 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act and section 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act provide that no public official shall engage in any collective action other than for the purpose of performing public duties. Additionally, section 3(2) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act provides that public officials must not violate other laws when engaging in union activities. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea has, for example, ruled that government employees’ unauthorized absences following the KGEU’s resolution to stage a general strike constituted “acts that undermine the essence of public service or cause serious administrative disruptions, leading to unforeseen inconvenience to citizens and public distrust in officials, and amount to collective action for purposes other than the performance of public duties”. (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16991, rendered on 13 April 2007). The Korean Government therefore carried out an in-depth review to determine the legality of the KGEU’s policy referendum among all its members.
17. 564. First, the MOEL determined that the KGEU’s act of casting pro or con votes could not be considered a legitimate union activity under the Public Officials Labour Union Act because a majority of voting items were unrelated to government employees’ working conditions, with most of them concerning government policy decisions – matters that are non-negotiable through collective bargaining under the Act. Additionally, it was seen as a collective action, or an act carried out in the name of a group protesting national policies. As this violated article 3(2) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, the MOEL informed the KGEU on 17 November 2022 that it should refrain from voting and emphasized that any legal violation would be addressed strictly according to the law and principles. The Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) and the Ministry of Personnel Management also found the voting activity to be in violation of the law as it posed a risk of breaching the provision that prohibits public officials from engaging in labour campaigns or other group actions unrelated to public duties. Failure to comply with laws and regulations could be seen as a violation of the duty of good faith and disobeying the order to refrain from participating in the vote could constitute a breach of the duty of obedience. Accordingly, on 17 November 2022, the MOIS requested that 17 metropolitan municipalities and central government agencies issue orders to suspend the voting. Despite the Korean Government’s request to suspend the unlawful act, the KGEU went ahead with the referendum among all its members. As a result, the MOIS had no choice but to request a police investigation of four KGEU leaders for legal violations. The police later determined the act to be unlawful, and the case was referred to prosecution in May 2023.
18. 565. As regards the complainants’ allegation that the referendum merely gathered member views on government policies affecting public-sector workers, the Government maintains that the KGEU’s referendum addressed various government policy issues that are not directly related to the working conditions of government employees. These included: “Whether the Minister of the Interior and Safety should be dismissed or disciplined for the failure to prevent the crowd crush and mass death on the Halloween night”; “Whether government employees should be required to work longer hours and be subjected to differential minimum wages”; “Whether key social and public services, such as care, nursing, medicine, and education, should be more privatized”; and “Whether the current government’s policy of cutting taxes for corporations and the rich, while cutting welfare spending, should be maintained”. According to the Government, while issues related to working hours and minimum wages apply to general workers, they are not directly related to government employees governed by the State Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Act. Finally, referring to Constitutional Court definitions, the Government considers that, for the voting items to be considered “directly related” to the working conditions of government employees, as claimed by the complainants, there must be a direct link between the two without any intermediary in between. Each item, on its own, must pertain to government employees’ working conditions and should typically address matters that involve a change in government employees’ working conditions. The aim of the referendum beyond the direct connection with the working conditions of government employees is evident from the banner used for the press conference outside the Presidential office: “Press Conference to Announce the Results of the Referendum among All Union Members to Evaluate the Yoon Suk Yeol Administration’s Policies and to Call for the Dismissal and Punishment of the Minister of the Interior and Safety.”
19. 566. It is therefore clear to the Government that conducting a referendum among all members undermines the constitutional principle of political neutrality and violates the prohibition of government employees from engaging in labour campaigns or other collective actions unrelated to their official duties set out in the law. This is supported by the Constitutional Court which has ruled that “even if criticism or opposition to government policies carried out collectively does not take the form of support for a specific political party or faction, there is a high likelihood that it may be misunderstood as political bias. Therefore, it is unavoidable to restrict collective expressions of opinion by public officials, and such restrictions cannot be considered to violate the principle of no excessive restriction.” (Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ba32, rendered on 28 August 2014). The Government also refers to paragraph 727 of the Compilation and considers that holding a referendum on issues not directly related to occupational interest may be viewed as engagement in political activity in an abusive manner. The Government considers that its position is supported by the rejection of a remedy application filed by a local public official who was disciplined for leading the KGEU’s referendum finding that “except for some items of the referendum, it does not appear to be directly related to improving government employees’ working conditions or their social and economic status”, and where the disciplinary action was upheld by the appellate court on 10 April 2025.
20. 567. The Government emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between political neutrality and political freedom for public servants. In this context, it is unreasonable to overinterpret the referendum items through hypothetical arguments attempting to link them to working conditions when they are clearly unrelated. Public officials must remember that they serve the people first, even as union members.
21. 568. Finally, as regards the allegations that section 66 of the State Public Officials Act and section 58 of the Local Public Officials Act run contrary to Convention No. 87 and that the Government action was excessive, the Government recalls that the Constitutional Court in 2017 found these provisions constitutional and observed in a case where collective actions were contrary to the public interest and likely to interfere with the faithful execution of duties, the Government’s response could not be seen as an excessive restriction. Despite the guidance and requests, the KGEU proceeded with the referendum among all its members. As a result, the MOIS had no choice but to request a formal investigation into the union on 7 December 2022. It is important to note, however, that the investigation request did not target all KGEU members, but was limited to a minimum scope – specifically, four union executives, including the union head, who planned and led the referendum. In light of all the above, the Government considers the complainants’ allegations without merit.
22. 569. As regards the allegation related to the retaliatory measures taken by the mayor and the Jongno-gu district office against Ms Jeon, union chapter Chairperson, Ms Lee, Vice-Chairperson, and Mr Hwang, Secretary, the Government recalls that section 7 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act provides that: “Public officials who wish to engage exclusively in labour union activities may, with the consent of the appointing authority, be assigned to perform such activities on a full-time basis, and the appointing authority shall order a leave of absence for this purpose. According to the Government, Ms Jeon and the other union executives were carrying out full-time union activities without obtaining the required consent from the mayor of Jongno-gu. Accordingly, the Jongno-gu Office sent an official letter asking them to either return to their official duties or obtain leave as full-time union officials in compliance with the law. Despite having ample opportunity to respond, Ms Jeon failed to express her intent. As a result, and to prevent a prolonged violation of the law as well as disruptions in public service delivery, the Jongno-gu Office conducted a routine personnel reassignment in accordance with internal transfer regulations. The transfer order for Ms Jeon and two other union executives was a legitimate exercise of the appointing authority’s personnel management rights.
23. 570. In light of Ms Jeon’s failures above and in view of her public criticism of government policies and organization of unauthorized protests targeting the mayor of Jongno-gu without substantiated grounds, despite her position as a public servant, the Jongno-gu Office requested the Seoul Metropolitan Government Personnel Management Committee to deliberate on imposing a severe disciplinary measure. Following careful review, the Committee imposed a three-month suspension. Ms Jeon filed a petition requesting that the suspension be withdrawn, but it was dismissed by the Committee. She then initiated an administrative lawsuit before the Seoul Administrative Court which dismissed the case in January 2025 stating among other reasons: “Ms Jeon engaged solely in union activities as a full-time union official of the KGEU Jongno-gu chapter without following due legal process. She failed to respond to the Jongno-gu Office’s request for legalization of her status, disregarded a legitimate order to return to work, and participated in unauthorized picketing during official working hours.” In addition to the disciplinary measures, the Jongno-gu Office also reported Ms Jeon to the Jongno-gu Police Station for alleged violation of section122 of the Criminal Act (Dereliction of Duty).
24. 571. As regards the mayor’s suspension of union negotiations, the Government states that the Jongno-gu Office has never neglected to engage in bargaining with unions or refused to convene any labour-management consultation meetings and has responded in accordance with due legal process to legitimate union activity requests. Nevertheless, the KGEU’s unauthorized rallies and baseless slander against the Jongno-gu mayor, among other actions, have made it difficult to continue with the bargaining process.
25. 572. Finally, as regards the question of union membership eligibility, the Government recalls the provisions of the legislation and states that the Constitutional Court has ruled that excluding government employees who carry out duties on behalf of administrative agencies in matters related to labour unions from union membership does not violate the Constitution. The intent of this ruling is that, because there is a risk that the public official in question may dominate or interfere with the operations of the labour union or infringe upon its autonomy if allowed to join, and furthermore, a possibility that the balance of power in adversarial labour-management relations – such as collective bargaining – may be disrupted, the exclusion is consistent with the fundamental legal principles aimed at realizing collective autonomy between labour and management. The legal basis for this position is set out in section 6(2) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree. In this context, when the KGEU announced its plan for a referendum among all its members in 2022, the Jongno-gu Office issued official letters advising the union to “accurately understand the scope of government employees prohibited from union membership and comply with applicable laws and regulations”. This was done out of concern that Jongno-gu employees might face legal disadvantages if they violated the law by participating in the union referendum. It is the duty of an administrative office to help ensure its employees comply with the law and avoid any risk to their official status. This action was not intended to suppress union activities or pressure members to withdraw from the union.
26. 573. As regards the case of Ms Lee, the Government indicates that the Jongno-gu Office asked her whether she wanted to “return to work” or “take leave for full-time union activities” as she was unable to serve as team leader due to these full-time activities. As she did not respond, the Office assigned her to a new task through a routine personnel assignment. This personnel assignment for a union executive was a legitimate measure taken based on the appointing authority’s unique personnel rights. Additionally, Ms Lee, the senior Vice-Chairperson of the Jongno-gu chapter of the KGEU, was transferred from the Construction Management Division of the Jongno-gu Office to the Changsin 3-dong Community Service Center on 16 January 2023. Subsequently, on 27 March 2023, she was appointed as the head of the community welfare team and has since been overseeing community welfare affairs.
27. 574. As regards the allegations that the new mayor of Songpa-gu unilaterally abolished the standing collective agreement with the local government employees, the Government states that, from July 2002 to May 2021, successive mayors of Songpa-gu and the Songpa-gu chapter of the KGEU signed numerous labour-management agreements, including on “personnel systems”, which resulted in undue interference with the appointment authority of the elected mayors of Songpa-gu. The Government provides three examples of provisions which it states are contrary to the limitations on collective bargaining set out in section 8(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and section 4 of the Enforcement Decree.

    • Labour-Management Agreement	Content of the Agreement	Decision by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
      Subparagraph 2 of the Agreement (16 July 2018)	Promotion examinations for grade 6 or lower positions were held at the same time and place. However, due to the regional elections on June 13, the promotion examination for grade 5 positions shall be skipped for this year and instead decided by the personnel committee.	This provision excessively restricts the Songpa-gu Office’s authority over personnel appointments in promotion examinations. Therefore, it violates section 8(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and subparagraph 2 of section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
      Subparagraph 2, Item (d) of the Agreement on Personnel System Improvement (1 June 2019)	When the agency establishes or revises personnel notices or criteria, it must publicly announce them only after reaching prior agreement with the union.	This provision requires prior agreement with the KGEU before the agency can establish or revise personnel notices or criteria. It broadly restricts the Songpa-gu Office’s policy-making authority and therefore violates section 8(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and subparagraph 2 of section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
      Subparagraph 2 of the Agreement	The promotion examination for Grade-5 Deputy Director positions shall be conducted in December 2021, and the selection of candidates and the scope of promotion shall be decided in consultation with the union.	This provision excessively limits the Songpa-gu Office’s appointment authority by specifying the timing of the grade-5 Deputy Director promotion and requiring prior consultation with the KGEU regarding the selection and scope of promotion candidates. It is thus in violation of section 8(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and subparagraph 2 of section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

      >
28. 575. Section 31(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter: TULRAA) provides that, where a collective agreement contains unlawful provisions, administrative agencies may issue a correction order upon resolution by the Labour Relations Commission. Accordingly, the Eastern Seoul Regional Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor issued a corrective order on 24 May 2023, regarding the unlawful collective agreement. Subsequently, on 22 December 2023, the Songpa-gu Office and the KGEU Songpa-gu chapter implemented corrective measures after achieving a mutual agreement to comply with the order. The Government refers to four examples of articles in the 2021 collective agreement which were subject to corrective orders (articles 2, 4, 50 and 51).
29. 576. As regards the allegations that the Mayor of Songpa-gu district made statements against the union and coerced civil servants to sign a statement condemning the KGEU, the Government first indicates that the KGEU Songpa-gu district chapter has long made undue demands on successive mayors and senior public officials, excessively interfering in personnel affairs. When the Songpa-gu Office refused to comply with an unlawful labour-management agreement and carried out personnel appointments, the union responded by putting up banners with provocative slogans – such as “Ashamed to live in Songpa”, “A sexual harassment suspect appointed to the mayor-elect’s transition team!”, “Arbitrary personnel abuse!”, “Becoming a public official is way too easy”, and “Proud to be part of the Taegeukgi faction” – in an effort to push through their demands. In addition, the union held daily picket protests in front of the district office and the residence of Mayor Seo, issued multiple joint statements, and held several press conferences. On 12 October 2022, one day before releasing its fifth statement, protesters occupied the road in front of the district office and staged a sit-in protest. Approximately 400 police officers were deployed, leading to a significant waste of administrative resources and inconvenience to citizens. These unlawful actions not only seriously tarnished the district office’s public image but also undermined public service discipline and severely disrupted employees’ ability to focus on their official duties. In response, some senior officials of the Songpa-gu Office, including the vice-mayor, voluntarily issued five statements between 29 July and 13 October 2022 based on their responsibility and authority under section 48 (Duty of Good Faith) of the Local Public Officials Act to manage and supervise subordinates and to prevent organizational division and dysfunction resulting from the Songpa-gu Office union’s abnormal and unlawful conduct. The statement conveyed a call for the union to comply with the law and to refrain from demanding the implementation of unlawful agreements. It also reaffirmed the commitment to ensuring the fullest possible protection of union activities within the framework of the Trade Union Act and the Public Officials Labour Union Act, while urging the union to stop engaging in illegal and wrongful practices and to cooperate in fostering a work environment where employees can focus on their core responsibilities. The statement encouraged general employees not to be concerned about union interference in personnel matters and to remain committed to their duties, emphasizing that personnel-related matters fall outside the scope of collective bargaining and that even if such matters are included in a collective agreement, they carry no legal effect. The statement ultimately urged compliance with the Public Officials Labour Union Act, which constituted its central message.
30. 577. Ms Choi, the former Chairperson of the Songpa-gu district chapter of the KGEU, and the union filed for relief on 28 October 2022, claiming that three of the statements constituted acts of unfair labour practices. The Seoul Regional Labor Commission rejected all the relief applications on 27 December 2022 (hereinafter “initial decision”). They then filed for re-examination with the Central Labor Commission on 8 February 2023 which ruled that only the fifth statement (entitled “The Three Clerical Union Executives at the Songpa-gu Office, Who Are Harassing Songpa Residents and Public Officials, Should Resign Immediately”) went beyond the mere expression of opinions or views and demonstrated an intent to directly interfere with the internal operations of the union through the threat of adverse consequences, thereby constituting an unfair labour practice involving domination or interference”. However, the commission rejected all other claims for relief. Notably, contrary to the complainants’ claims, the Central Labor Relations Commission has never ruled that the “Songpa Mayor had unlawfully coerced district office officials into signing the statement”. Regarding this matter, the Central Labor Commission ruled that, “Although the Vice-Mayor requested that his name be removed from the fifth statement after it was published, it appears that there was implicit consent from the Vice-Mayor at the time the statement was issued. Therefore, the claim by the KGEU that the Vice-Mayor’s name was used without authorization is difficult to accept.” (24 April 2023, Decision Central2023Bu-No33).
31. 578. Meanwhile, the Central Labor Relations Commission recognized only the fifth statement as an unfair labour practice involving domination and interference, stating, “The Songpa District Office should have explained to Ms Choi and the union that the matter in question was non-negotiable under the provision of section 8(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and sought cooperation, or, if that was not possible, taken legal measures such as terminating the collective agreement, requesting corrective action from the MOEL, or referring the matter for disciplinary action.” The Government adds however that the Central Labor Commission’s re examination decision contains several factual errors, and the Songpa-gu Office has filed an administrative lawsuit seeking its cancellation. The case is currently awaiting the court’s final judgment. According to the Government, although the fifth statement included an expression mentioning the resignation of three labour union officials, this should be interpreted as expressing the view that the actions of those officials were illegal. Referring to Supreme Court precedents relevant to employer freedom of expression, the Government states that it is difficult to conclude that this alone constitutes an intention to engage in unfair labour practices.
32. 579. As regards the claims of corruption, these were reviewed by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission which closed the case having found no violation.
33. 580. As concerns the emails sent to public servants in October 2022, the Government indicates that the email was merely intended to provide general and comprehensive information included in the Compilation of Questions and Answers on the Public Officials and Teachers’ Union Act, published by the MOEL around September 2021, in response to inquiries from staff at the Songpa-gu Office. While Ms Choi and the KGEU argue that sending the email constituted an unfair labour practice, both the initial ruling on 27 December 2022, and the re-examination ruling on 24 April 2023, rejected this claim because the email’s content was confirmed to be factual information derived from relevant laws and regulations, as well as materials published by the MOEL and did not contain personal opinions or interpretations from the employer. The Government adds that union membership and withdrawal are entirely matters of individual free will and there is no evidence that the email regarding the scope of union membership coerced or interfered with employees’ free choice.
34. 581. The Government states that, according to recent media reports, dissatisfaction among Millennials and Generation Z has been growing due to rigid organizational culture and the politically charged actions of the KGEU, such as protests against government policies. In the Government’s view, this contributed to a growing perception that joining or maintaining union membership is no longer necessary, fostering an environment in which employees are increasingly choosing to withdraw from or not join unions at all.
35. 582. The chapter’s claim that the Songpa-gu Office labelled all types of union activities by public officials illegal and threatened managerial-level public officials with disciplinary action or other disadvantages for participating in union assemblies is unfounded. The Songpa-gu Office simply provided information on the lawful scope of union membership under the Public Officials Labour Union Act and requested compliance with the relevant laws. No threats of disciplinary action were made.
36. 583. As regards the determination of “work supervisors”, the Government recalls that the amendments made to the Act in January 2021 in preparation for the subsequent ratification of Convention No. 87 were aimed at abolishing restrictions based on official rank while section 6(2) of the Act prohibits union membership for public officials who: primarily supervise or direct other public officials, or oversee their work; or are primarily responsible for affairs inappropriate to the union membership status, such as personnel management, compensation, or labour relations adjustment and supervision. Based on this and the 2008 Constitutional Court decision recognizing restrictions to the labour rights of public officials, the MOEL published and distributed the Manual on Public Servant Labor Management Relations (September 2021) to help public sector labour and management understand and apply relevant institutional systems correctly in the workplace. The manual underscores that while union membership should generally be interpreted broadly, specific individual on-site circumstances must be considered holistically when determining eligibility. When reviewing the assigned job description and tasks actually carried out, consideration should be given as to: whether the individual has overall authority over other affiliated public officials’ work; whether the individual approves other affiliated public officials’ work schedules (attendance, travel, etc.); whether the individual shares joint responsibility for audit results with other employees; the proportion and workload distribution of general versus specialized tasks; and the degree of involvement in matters on the work, etc. of other (affiliated) public officials.
37. 584. A -grade 6 team leader at Songpa-gu Office performs their assigned duties while also supporting and managing the work of their colleagues. This clearly establishes their position and role as a manager. In fact, considering their managerial status, grade 6 team leaders are commonly referred to as “mid-level managers”. The Government underlines that the term “grade 6 team leader” refers to a position distinct from that of a general grade 6 public official.
38. 585. The Jongno-gu Office for its part determined that “public officials at grade 6 or higher in managerial positions” were subject to the prohibition on union membership and accordingly notified its staff in November 2022. The union objected to the blanket prohibition, arguing that it was unreasonable to restrict union membership for all employees in those positions. Following consultations with the union, the district office has been working to address the issue reasonably. In December 2022, it revised and reissued the notice on the scope of union membership, in accordance with section 6 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and section 3 of its Enforcement Decree.
39. 586. As regards alleged interference with collective bargaining, the Government maintains that correction orders issued for unlawful collective agreements are legitimate regulatory measures and do not conflict with ILO Conventions. The Government provides the following examples of violations in Government Employees’ Collective Agreements.

    • Type	Major Cases
      Recognition of Collective Agreements Taking Precedence Over Laws and Regulations	Recognizing the precedence of collective agreements over guidelines, directives, and similar instruments (established under laws and regulations). Enacting or amending ordinances or rules to align with collective agreements, when such agreements provide more favourable terms than those stipulated in the existing ordinances or rules.
      The inclusion in collective agreements of matters not subject to bargaining, such as policy decision and the exercise of appointment authority	Prohibiting staff reductions due to restructuring or organizational reshuffles, and requiring labour-management agreement for any adjustments in the number of staff. Requiring union agreement on the selection method for promotion review committee members, with at least 30 per cent of the members to be recommended by the union. Requiring union agreement for the transfer of union members to other institutions and for personnel decisions involving union officials. Including external personnel recommended by the union in the personnel (promotion) committee. Requiring union agreement prior to the implementation of performance-based bonuses. Requiring prior union agreement when allocating budgets for union member welfare.

      >
40. 587. Section 31(3) of the TULRAA stipulates that if a collective agreement contains unlawful provisions, the administrative agency may issue a correction order after obtaining a resolution from the Labour Relations Commission. This process is intended to prevent unintended harm and reduce confusion or conflict by promptly addressing illegal provisions in collective agreements. Importantly, to eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions by administrative agencies, the law requires that correction orders be issued only after the Labour Relations Commission – a quasi-judicial, independent body – has rendered a decision. Moreover, such correction orders are not intended as a form of prior approval or pre-emptive review. Rather, while respecting the principle of autonomy in collective agreements, this mechanism serves as an inevitably necessary post-facto means, enabling unions to voluntarily rectify any unlawful provisions in the agreement through subsequent orders. Third, a correction order by the administrative authority imposes a public law obligation on both labour and management to amend or supplement the relevant agreement. However, it does not immediately nullify the effect under private law of the collective agreement. In other words, the agreement remains legally effective until a final judgment is issued through the courts. That said, collective agreements that include provisions on matters legally prohibited from bargaining are inherently invalid and do not require a correction order from an administrative agency. Fourth, if a union considers a correction order to be an excessive or arbitrary infringement on its internal affairs, it may file an administrative lawsuit to seek its revocation. In such cases, the court may make a substantive judgment on the legality of the correction order. If the court finds that the legal basis for the order violates the Constitution, it may request a constitutional review of the relevant provision.
41. 588. The Government recalls that the Public Officials Labour Union Act excludes from collective bargaining matters not directly related to working conditions such as those related to policy decisions made by state of local governments, as well as matters concerning the management and operation of the relevant agency, such as the exercise of appointment authority. Following on this and constitutional precedent, the MOEL issued correction orders following resolutions from the Labor Relations Commission. Failure to comply with these correction orders results in criminal penalties, in accordance with section 93 of TULRAA. As regards the excessive nature of the penalty, the Government recalls that the Constitutional Court in 2012 had already held that the imposition of a fine of up to 5,000,000 won (approximately $3,800) for violations does not breach the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, nor does it disrupt the balance of the penal system, thus not violating the principle of no excessive punishment or restriction.
42. 589. In conclusion, the Government considers that the complainants’ argument that sections 8 and 10 of the Public Officials Labour Union Act violates Conventions Nos 87 and 98 is unfounded. Section 8 defines matters not directly related to working conditions – such as policy decisions or the management and operation of an agency – as “matters not subject to negotiation”, while ensuring other matters to be subject to autonomous collective bargaining between labour and management. Under section 10, provisions in collective agreements that pertain to legal or budgetary matters beyond the enforceable scope of the Government’s bargaining representative are deemed without legal effect, even if included in the agreement. At the same time, section 10(2) of the same Act obligates the Government’s bargaining representative to make efforts to implement those provisions deemed invalid, thereby counteracting the limitations of section 10(1). These provisions are closely tied to the Korean career civil service system that has evolved over time. While each country may approach public sector labour rights differently, it is generally accepted that the labour rights of public officials – who are responsible for delivering public services – can be regulated differently from those of general workers in a justifiable way. These provisions reflect the unique role of government employees who deliver public services in the Republic of Korea and were established to strike a balance between political neutrality and political freedoms. Even if they partially restrict certain labour rights, their necessity is recognized, and they do not impose unreasonable restrictions or reduce freedom of association to a mere formality. Additionally, Korean public officials receive substantial benefits, including secure status, favourable working conditions, and a separate pension system not available to general workers. It is also important to consider that excessive protection of the basic rights of public officials could potentially come at the expense of the basic rights of general workers and citizens. The Government emphasizes once again that the Republic of Korea remains committed to respecting, promoting and realizing ILO Conventions.
43. 590. The Government concludes by referring to the measures that have been taken over the years to expand the labour rights of government employees and public servant organizations including the January 2021 amendments removing rank-based membership restrictions, the establishment by the Government and public servant organizations of a Labor-Management Joint Research Committee in June 2016 which resulted in a number of innovations and more recently the 2020 Government negotiations concluded in June 2024 with an agreement to continue discussions on measures to address income gaps after retirement. Finally, the Government recalls that a Bill to amend the State Public Officials Act to expand political freedoms for public officials has been proposed and is currently under review in the National Assembly.
44. 591. Over the years, the Republic of Korea has developed a career civil service system tailored to its social context, amid the pressures of rapid economic development and the realities of a divided nation. While striving to strike a balance between political neutrality and political freedom for public officials, the Government has steadily expanded the scope of their political freedom. In contrast, the complainants conducted a referendum among all union members on political and policy issues unrelated to their working conditions, in violation of current laws. Moreover, they have criticized legitimate administrative actions, including lawful personnel measures taken by the Offices of Jongno-gu and Songpa-gu in Seoul, legal guidance issued to staff, government issued legal interpretations, and correction orders against unlawful collective agreements issued by the Korean Government. The complainants’ claims are not based on fact, and illegal labour actions in violation of the law cannot be justified. The Government urges the Committee to review the Korean Government’s legitimate measures with balance and objectivity, and to issue a fair and reasonable conclusion on this matter.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

Grade-6 team leaders’ membership in the KGEU

Retaliatory action

Collective bargaining and interference in collective agreements

1. 592. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that the Government of the Republic of Korea has violated Conventions Nos 87 and 98 through a series of actions against the Korean Government Employees Union (KGEU) affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) by: (1) interfering in a referendum held by the KGEU among its members on the Government’s public and labour policies, including by imposing disciplinary measures and initiating criminal proceedings against the trade union executives involved; (2) urging KGEU’s members to withdraw their trade union membership and interfering with their trade union activities; and (3) abusing the national laws which infringe the right to free and voluntary bargaining, ordering the parties to revisit and alter provisions in collective bargaining agreements and denying their validity.
2. 593. The Committee notes that the Government denies there has been any violation of the ILO Conventions and as background provides detailed information on how and why the Korean civil service system has evolved to balance two core values: the political neutrality required of government employees as servants of the entire public, and their political freedom as ordinary citizens. The Government also emphasizes that it has consistently taken steps to expand the political freedoms of government employees over time.
3. 594. The Committee takes note of the facts in relation to the referendum as detailed by the complainants, which are not disputed by the Government: From 22 to 24 September 2022, the KGEU held a referendum among its members, asking them to express their support or opposition in relation to seven specific policy issues, namely:
   • (a) whether the Minister of Public Administration and Safety [sic] should be dismissed or disciplined for failing to prevent the crowd crush and mass deaths on Halloween night in Seoul in 2022, and whether the transfer of blame to lower-level civil servants should stop;
   • (b) whether to raise wages of government employees by 1.7 per cent in 2023;
   • (c) whether the Government should move forward with its plan to reduce the public sector workforce by 5 per cent over the next five years;
   • (d) whether the current pension-eligible age of 65 years should be maintained for Government employees, given that their retirement age is 60 years;
   • (e) whether government employees should be required to work longer hours and be subjected to “differential” minimum wages;
   • (f) whether key social and public services (for example, care, nursing, medicine and education) should be further privatized; and
   • (g) whether the current Government’s policy of cutting taxes for corporations and the rich, while cutting welfare spending, should be maintained.
4. 595. On 16 November 2022, prior to the referendum, the Minister of the Interior and Safety issued an official communication, which was sent to the heads of all national government departments and agencies, and in which the Minister expressed the view that the referendum exceeded the bounds of legitimate trade union activities and urged them to take “active” measures to prevent their employees from taking part in it. The Minister also warned union members of severe disciplinary consequences, in accordance with “the law and principles”, should they participate in the referendum. The referendum was held as planned, but only one third of the 150,000 registered KGEU members took part in it, namely 38,543 members, with 90 per cent of the votes cast indicating discontent with the Government’s policy on the specific issues listed in the ballot, as a result of which the KGEU requested the Government to review its policy. Subsequently, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency launched an investigation into the drafting and organization of the referendum, focusing on the president and four other high-level leaders of the KGEU. In May 2023, the police referred the case to prosecution, concluding that the KGEU’s union officers had violated the State Public Officials Act, that the seven issues put to vote were political statements unrelated to improving the union members’ working conditions, and that the referendum did therefore not constitute legitimate trade union activity. Some local governments enforced disciplinary measures against KGEU leaders for mobilizing votes under the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act, but some administrative appeal commissions ruled the disciplinary measures to be unjustified considering that the KGEU had engaged in legitimate trade union activities, as a result of which some local governments have revoked the disciplinary measures, while others have not yet revoked them. Some local union leaders filed administrative lawsuits against the disciplinary measures taken against them, which led to a decision of a court of first instance in June 2024 (the Ulan District Court), which ruled that only some of the issues on the agenda of the referendum directly affected government employees’ working conditions, while the first issue was political in nature and others pertained to national policy-making. Consequently, the court held that the entire referendum violated the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and that the disciplinary measures were justified.
5. 596. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that the legitimate activities of the KGEU were disrupted by: (1) the efforts by the Minister of the Interior and Safety and other heads of Government agencies to hinder the referendum from taking place; (2) the disciplinary measures applied to KGEU members, including reinforced surveillance and censure; and (3) the criminal proceedings waged against KGEU members for organizing the referendum in violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. According to the complainants, the organization of the referendum concerned essential economic and social policy decisions directly impacting the interests and working conditions of the KGEU and its members and that the communication of the results had been undertaken in the hope of influencing the Government into changing its policy. The complainants emphasize that the union’s public communications were aimed to protect and advocate for KGEU’s members interests without endorsing or opposing any politicians or political parties and could therefore not considered to be a “purely political activity” as discouraged among public servants.
6. 597. The Committee notes that, while the Government does not dispute the facts of the case, it does contest the interpretation given by the KGEU of both the law and the actions taken by Government officials. In light of the importance of maintaining political neutrality of government employees, the Government carried out a review of the questions raised in the referendum and determined that they could not be considered a legitimate union activity under the Public Officials Labour Union Act as a majority of voting items were unrelated to government employees’ working conditions, with most of them concerning government policy decisions – matters that are non-negotiable through collective bargaining under the Act. Additionally, it was seen as a collective action, or an act carried out in the name of a group protesting national policies. The KGEU was thus informed that it should refrain from voting and that any legal violation would be addressed strictly according to the law and principles. Failure to comply with laws and regulations could be seen as a violation of the duty of good faith and can constitute a breach of the duty of obedience. Accordingly, on 17 November 2022, the MOIS requested that 17 metropolitan municipalities and central government agencies issue orders to suspend the voting. Despite the Korean Government’s request to suspend the unlawful act, the KGEU went ahead with the referendum among all its members. As a result, the MOIS had no choice but to request a police investigation of four KGEU leaders for legal violations which were later determined to be unlawful, and the case was referred to prosecution in May 2023.
7. 598. The Government maintains that the KGEU’s referendum addressed various government policy issues that are not directly related to the working conditions of government employees and refers in particular to “Whether the Minister of the Interior and Safety should be dismissed or disciplined for the failure to prevent the crowd crush and mass death on the Halloween night”, “Whether government employees should be required to work longer hours and be subjected to differential minimum wages”, “Whether key social and public services, such as care, nursing, medicine, and education, should be more privatized”, and “Whether the current government’s policy of cutting taxes for corporations and the rich, while cutting welfare spending, should be maintained”. According to the Government, while issues related to working hours and minimum wages apply to general workers, they are not directly related to government employees governed by the State Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Act. In the Government’s opinion, in order for the voting items to be considered “directly related” to the working conditions of government employees there must be a direct link between the two without any intermediary. The aim of the referendum beyond the direct connection with the working conditions of government employees is evident from the banner used for the press conference outside the Presidential office: “Press Conference to Announce the Results of the Referendum among All Union Members to Evaluate the Yoon Suk Yeol Administration’s Policies and to Call for the Dismissal and Punishment of the Minister of the Interior and Safety.” Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a remedy application filed by a local public official who was disciplined for leading the KGEU’s referendum was rejected by the courts finding that “except for some items of the referendum, it does not appear to be directly related to improving government employees’ working conditions or their social and economic status”.
8. 599. The Committee notes that the main question relating to the KGEU referendum is whether the seven issues addressed in the referendum concern economic and social issues with a direct impact on the working conditions of public servants, or whether they are majorly political in nature and thus go beyond the bounds of what is acceptable for a politically neutral civil service. In this context, the Committee recalls that, when considering the exclusion from collective bargaining of matters concerning the policy decisions of the State or local government and matters concerning their management and operation such as the right to appointment, and in the absence of a clear definition of these matters, it had requested the Government (see Case No. 1865, Report 346, paragraph 749; Report 353, paragraph 705; and Report 404, paragraph 77) to ensure that public officials’ trade unions not properly considered as engaged in the administration of the State have the possibility to express their views publicly on the wider economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on their members’ trade union interests. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it also considered that it is only insofar as trade union organizations do not allow their occupational demands to assume a clearly political aspect that they can legitimately claim that there should be no interference in their activities. On the other hand, it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between what is political and what is, properly speaking, trade union in character. These two notions overlap and it is inevitable, and sometimes usual, for trade union publications to take a stand on questions having political aspects, as well as on strictly economic and social questions [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 730]. The Committee takes due note of the diverging views in this case on what should be considered as purely political, further complicated by the Government’s strict interpretation of matters directly related to working conditions.
9. 600. The Committee observes that several of the issues addressed in the referendum have both a socio economic nature and as indicated by the complainants arguably also have a direct impact on the working conditions of public servants. The Committee notes in particular the references to the potential impact on: the wage levels of public servants (second and fifth issue of the referendum); their working hours (third, fifth and sixth issue); their eligible age for pension benefits (fourth issue of the referendum); as well as a potential reduction in the number of staff (third and sixth issue of the referendum). In others, however, the direct impact that the matters may have on working conditions appear indeed to be subsidiary to their political nature. Here the Committee notes in particular the Government’s reference to the first issue concerning the application of disciplinary measures to hold the Minister accountable for alleged mismanagement (including his removal) and the seventh issue concerning the Government’s tax policy and welfare spending).
10. 601. While taking due note of the warnings provided to KGEU and its members concerning the conducting of the referendum, the Committee considers, as it has in previous decisions relating to the Republic of Korea, that there remains insufficient clarity and understanding among all parties as to what constitutes purely political activity and what can be considered as related to the working conditions of government employees. The Committee recommends that the Government and the KGEU engage in discussions and consultations to ensure that public officials’ trade unions not properly considered as engaged in the administration of the State have the possibility to express their views publicly on the wider economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on their members’ trade union interests.
11. 602. As regards the disciplinary actions taken against KGEU leaders, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegation, confirmed by the Government, that sections 65 and 66 of the State Public Officials Act, and sections 57 and 58 of the Local Public Officials Act do not only impose a general ban on all form of political activities, but also prohibit collective actions of civil servants and the expression of collective opinions or stances by public officials. In this respect, the Committee notes that section 65 of the State Public Officials Act and 57 of Local Public Officials Act provide that: “(1) No public official may participate in an organization of, or join in, any political party or other political organization; and (2) No public official shall engage in the following activities to support or oppose a specified political party or person in an election: … “ It notes that sections 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act and 58(1) of Local Public Officials Act provide that “no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labour campaign, or activities, other than providing public services”. Noting that these provisions go so far as to prohibit even the participation in or joining of a political party, a simple civic act, the Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that an amendment to the State Public Officials Act was proposed in June 2024 and is currently under review in the National Assembly to expand the political freedoms of government employees, including by allowing public officials to join political parties and easing restrictions on their participation in election campaigns. The Committee trusts that this legislation will soon be adopted and will clarify the space for government employees in relation to economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on the interests of their members. Noting that the CEACR is already examining restrictions in the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and to public servants’ freedom of expression on economic and social policy questions, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR.
12. 603. The Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that following the nationwide local elections in June 2022, the newly elected mayors of the Seoul districts of Jongno-gu and Songpa-gu declared the collective agreements signed by their predecessors with the respective KGEU local chapters as illegal or not to be in conformity with the Public Officials Labour Union Act. Following the organization by the KGEU of single-person demonstrations and press conferences to denounce the non-compliance with existing collective agreements, the KGEU alleges that these mayors sent official communications, claiming that team leaders at grade 6 of the civil service system (and assistant mangers dealing with budget) did not have the right to join unions under the applicable legal provisions, requesting them to relinquish their membership with the KGEU, and in the case of the mayor of Jongno-gu announcing “actions pursuant to the law”, should these officials not do so. As a result, more than 200 of the 900 members of the Jongno-gu chapter, and nearly 500 members of the 1,400 Songpa-gu chapter left the KGEU, which the complainants allege caused damage to the operations of the self-governed union in Songpa-gu.
13. 604. The Committee notes that the complainants consider that Convention No. 87 should extend to all categories of public servants, including grade 6 team managers. In this respect, the Committee notes that the complainants provide comprehensive information on the organization of the Korean local government system and describe the role and powers of grade 6 team leaders, asserting that they are part of the working-level staff and lack supervisory or managerial authority. They indicate that even though the Public Officials Labour Union Act no longer excludes any public officials from joining unions based on their rank, the Act still restricts union membership for civil servants whose “main duties” involve exercising “supervision and instruction over other government employees”. According to the complainants, the MOEL has continued to broadly interpret this provision, categorically limiting union membership for grade 6 civil servants who are team leaders, including in the 2021 Labour Relations Manual, in which grade 6 civil servants overseeing small teams of four or five members, who simply relay documentation and communications to their superiors, but do not manage staff or hold decision-making powers should still be considered “managers with supervisory powers” due to their duty to act as directors in their superior’s absence. The Committee notes the complainants’ assertion that the mayors of Jongno-gu and Songpa-gu had used this interpretation to prevent the unionization of all grade 6 team-leaders, without examining whether their actual duties actually involve a supervisory role and without considering that grade 6 team managers in these districts act as intermediaries with minimal managerial involvement who report to higher-level department or section chiefs who have the authority to make final decisions. In this regard, the Committee also notes the complainants’ reference to a decision by the National Labour Relations Commission in April 2023, which determined, in the context of a complaint concerning unfair labour practices brought against the Songpa-gu Office, that grade 6 team leaders could not be categorized as part of management and were therefore eligible to join unions, in accordance with Songpa-gu’s own administrative approval and decision-making procedure.
14. 605. The Committee notes that in reply to the question of union membership eligibility, the Government recalls the provisions of the legislation and the Constitutional Court ruling that government employees who carry out duties on behalf of administrative agencies in matters related to labour unions may be excluded from union membership. According to the Government, such an exclusion is necessary as there is a risk that the public official in question may dominate or interfere with the operations of the labour union or infringe upon its autonomy if allowed to join, and furthermore, a possibility that the balance of power in adversarial labour-management relations-such as collective bargaining-may be disrupted. The legal basis for this position is set out in section 6(2) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree. While section 6(1) permits union membership for general service officials and those in extraordinary civil service positions, section 6(2) prohibits union membership for government employees whose primary duties involve directing or supervising other government employees, managing administrative tasks of other government employees, or handling human resources, compensation, or labour relations – including mediation and oversight-functions that are considered incompatible with the status of a union member. In this context, when the KGEU announced its plan for a referendum among all its members in 2022, the Jongno-gu Office issued official letters advising the union to “accurately understand the scope of government employees prohibited from union membership and comply with applicable laws and regulations”. This was done out of concern that Jongno-gu employees might face legal disadvantages if they violated the law by participating in the union referendum. According to the Government, this action was not intended to suppress union activities or pressure members to withdraw from the union.
15. 606. Concerning the right to organize of grade 6 team leaders, the Committee recalls from its examination of Case No. 1865 that it had already considered the question of the right to organize of public officials, including grade 6 officials and above, and had requested the Government, with regard to the Public Officials Labour Union Act and its Enforcement Decree, to give consideration to further measures aimed at ensuring that the rights of public employees are fully guaranteed, by among other things, ensuring that public servants at all grades without exception and regardless of their tasks or functions, have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests (see, for instance, Report No. 346, paragraph 806). Moreover, the total exclusion from the legislation of high-ranking public servants is a violation of their fundamental right to organize. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that such public servants obtain the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and that this category of staff is not defined so broadly as to weaken the organizations of other public employees. [Compilation, para. 369]. The Committee notes, that prior to the amendments to the Public Officials Labour Union Act in January 2021, national legislation had explicitly granted grade 6 employees the right to join trade unions (while employees above that grade were excluded from union membership). In this regard, the Committee observes that the previous version of section 6(1) stated: “The scope of public officials eligible to join a trade union is described in the following subparagraphs: 1. General public officials of grade six or below, and general public officials equivalent thereto; (…).” The Committee also notes that while in the current version of section 6(1) grade-based bans have been removed, section 6(2) now provides that: “(…) any of the following public officials shall be prohibited from joining a labour union: 1. Public officials who exercise authority to direct and supervise other public officials or who are responsible for exercising overall control over the duties of other public officials; 2. Public officials engaged in duties incompatible with union membership, such as those involving personnel affairs, remuneration, or adjustment and supervision of labor relations; … (4) The scope of public officials under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” The Committee observes that under the current legislation and practice (that is section 6(2) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act and the 2021 Labour Relations Manual), at least as interpreted by the mayors of the Jongno-gu and Songpa gu, grade 6 team leaders do not have the right to form or join a union to represent their occupational interests and moreover that their withdrawal from membership of the KGEU has diminished the union’s force and potentially had a detrimental effect on its functioning, especially in the two chapters concerned. Recalling its previous recommendations to ensure that public servants at all grades have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and observing that the letters from the mayors of Songpa-gu and Jongno-gu concerning the legal scope of trade union membership (even if it was only a provision of factual information) had not been previously drawn to the attention of its members but only occurred following the announcement of the referendum and had the result of a significant loss of membership for the KGEU, the Committee considers that these actions have deprived the officials of their right to organize and to exercise legitimate trade union activity. Moreover, the Committee does not consider that distinction between a team leader and one that is not, nor an employee’s engagement in labour relations, justifies the deprivation of the fundamental right to organize. The Committee therefore expects the Government to take the necessary measures, including through a review of the 2021 Labour Relations Manual, to ensure that public servants, including grade 6 team managers, enjoy the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and engage in legitimate trade union activities and that any decision that may have been taken to demote or transfer grade 6 public officials due to their refusal to withdraw from the union are reversed and compensation is provided for any financial loss or prejudiced suffered. Noting that the CEACR is already examining issues relating to the exclusion of certain public officials from the right to establish and join organizations in the Public Officials Labour Union Act, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR.
16. 607. The KGEU alleges that this conflict resulted in retaliatory action and refers specifically to two districts. According to the KGEU, the mayor of Jongno-gu demoted the vice-president of the KGEU from a grade 6 team leader to a mere assistant manager, and reassigned the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson and the Secretary of the KGEU who had been granted time off as full-time union officials, to other positions and departments because of their union activities. The Jongno-gu mayor also announced actions in relation to officials for spending their working hours on union activities and suspended the KGEU Chairperson Ms Jeon for three months initiating criminal proceedings against her for dereliction of duty, which the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed. Subsequently, the KGEU initiated legal proceedings before the Seoul Administrative Court challenging her suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure. The KGEU alleges that the mayor of Jongno-gu has ceased all negotiations with the union since May 2023 and refused to convene any labour-management consultation meetings, asserting that the KGEU chapter had lost its standing to negotiate valid collective agreements due to the criminal charges and disciplinary action against its Chairperson. The mayor of Songpa-gu is also alleged to have issued a public letter banning managerial civil servants from attending KGEU assemblies and announcing disciplinary actions for contraventions. In this respect, the Committee notes that complainants indicate that the Songpa Police Station dismissed the criminal charges filed by the Songpa-gu Office against employees for union activities, including their participation in lunchtime rallies and single-person protest actions.
17. 608. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Ms Jeon and the other union executives were carrying out full-time union activities without obtaining the required consent from the mayor of Jongno-gu called for in the law. Accordingly, the Jongno-gu Office sent an official letter asking them to either return to their official duties or obtain leave as full-time union officials. Despite having ample opportunity to respond, Ms Jeon failed to express her intent. As a result, and to prevent a prolonged violation of the law as well as disruptions in public service delivery, the Jongno-gu Office conducted a routine personnel reassignment in accordance with internal transfer regulations. The transfer order for Ms Jeon and two other union executives (including Ms Lee) was a legitimate exercise of the appointing authority’s personnel management rights. In light of Ms Jeon’s failures and in view of her public criticism of government policies and organization of unauthorized protests targeting the mayor of Jongno-gu without substantiated grounds, despite her position as a public servant, the Jongno-gu Office requested the Seoul Metropolitan Government Personnel Management Committee to deliberate on imposing a severe disciplinary measure. Following careful review, the Committee imposed a three-month suspension. The Seoul Administrative Court dismissed her appeal in January 2025 stating among other reasons: “Ms Jeon engaged solely in union activities as a full-time union official of the KGEU Jongno-gu chapter without following due legal process. She failed to respond to the Jongno-gu Office’s request for legalization of her status, disregarded a legitimate order to return to work, and participated in unauthorized picketing during official working hours.” In addition to the disciplinary measures, the Jongno-gu Office also reported Ms Jeon to the Jongno gu Police Station for alleged violation of section 122 of the Criminal Act (Dereliction of Duty).
18. 609. In light of the contradictory nature of the information provided by the complainants (including on the outcome of the legal proceedings before the Seoul Administrative Court, which the complainants state were still remaining pending as of May 2025) and the Government in relation to the authorization for full-time union activity and the context in which the action was taken against Ms Jeon and the other union executives, the Committee is not in a position to conclude as to the anti-union nature of her transfer. The Committee does however consider that penal sanctions for carrying out legitimate trade union activities are not conducive to harmonious labour relations and trusts that the Government will observe restraint in any further actions so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. In this respect, the Committee welcomes the complainants’ indications that the criminal charges for dereliction of duty against Ms Jeon, as well as those filed by the Songpa-gu Office against employees for trade union activities were dismissed.
19. 610. As regards the allegations of the mayor’s ban on managerial civil servants attending KGEU assemblies and the threat of disciplinary actions for contraventions, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that such communications simply provided information on the lawful scope of union membership under the Public Officials Labour Union Act and requested compliance with the relevant laws and that no threats of disciplinary action were made. The Committee recalls that no person shall be prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, whether past or present [see Compilation, para. 1074], and notes that these communications are also related to the rights of public officials at all levels to engage in union activities as addressed above.
20. 611. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that, in February 2023, the MOEL released a “Plan for Correcting Unlawful Collective Agreements with Public Officials’ Trade Unions”, expressing the position that certain provisions in collective agreements concluded in the public sector do not comply with the Public Officials Labour Union Act, including: (1) provisions relating to the precedence of collective agreements over conflicting governmental guides and orders; (2) the requirement to protect basic labour rights, including the right to collective action, consultation and basic political rights; and (3) issues not directly related to the working conditions of civil servants, such as running national or local governments, making policy decisions and appointing officials. According to the complainants, the Ministry through the Labor Relations Commissions subsequently reviewed all 479 collective agreements in the public sector, and by June 2023, had ordered 136 public institutions to alter their agreements, including 80 agreements concluded between government employee unions and local governments (encompassing 263 provisions and 19 addendums). The Ministry ordered the highest number of revisions to the 2021 Collective Agreement of Songpa-gu. Non compliance with a Ministry’s correction order is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of 5,000,0000 won (approximately $3,800), and some government employee unions and local governments faced criminal investigations for non-compliance with the above-mentioned orders, while others accepted the correction orders. In August 2023, the Ministry also ordered corrections to ten articles in the agreement signed between the National Court Administration and its union. In September and October 2023, the MOEL distributed a letter entitled “What to Look Out for Before Signing Collective Agreements” to the local chapters of the KGEU and 27 local governments, in which collective agreements were waiting to be drawn up. The letter indicated that any provisions in collective agreements contradicting the Public Officials Labour Union Act were legally invalid and could not be enforced, and that they should not be used in future instances of collective bargaining, particularly regarding provisions entitling workers to participate in union activities during working hours, and those granting a special holiday on International Workers’ Day.
21. 612. The Committee notes that the Ministry’s orders to alter the provisions in the collective agreements were based on section 8(1) and section 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, as well as section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of that Act. The Committee notes that section 8(1) provides that:
    • The representatives of a trade union reserve the power to negotiate and sign, on behalf of their union and/or its members, collective agreements on remuneration, welfare, and other terms and conditions of employment with the representatives of Government … . Matters of policy decisions, which the State or local governments reserve the right to implement pursuant to the law, and matters related to the management and operation of given institutions (e.g., the right to appoint teachers) that do not directly pertain to employment terms and conditions are excluded from the scope of bargaining.
22. 613. The Committee further notes that section 4 of the Enforcement Decree of Public Officials Labour Union Act provides that:
    • Matters of policy decisions and the management and operation of institutions, barred from collective bargaining by section 8(1) of the Act, include the following: 1.Policymaking and decision-making, such as the development and drafting of policy programs; 2. The exercise of the right of appointment, including the hiring, promotion, and transfer of public officials; 3. The organization and size of the employer institution; 4. Budgets and funds, and their execution; 5. Litigation and disputes (including objections or appeals) involving the employer institution; and 6. Other matters related to the management and operation of the employer institution.
23. It further notes that section 10(1) provides that: “Terms of collective agreements entered pursuant to section 9, which are subject to statutes, bylaws, ordinances, and/or budgetary decisions, shall not be binding as terms of collective agreements.”
24. 614. The Committee notes that the complainants express the view that: (1) there should be no matters of policymaking or governance that automatically preclude collective bargaining with government employees when such matters determine the general framework for their working conditions; (2) that all provisions ordered by the MOEL to be removed from the collective agreements between unions and local governments have a direct impact on employees’ working conditions, encompassing issues such as personnel, welfare, and remuneration; and (3) that the Ministry had required the correction of all provisions in collective agreements that even hinted at impacting the institution’s “policies”, “personnel”, “budgets” and “operations”.
25. 615. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s view that correction orders issued for unlawful collective agreements are legitimate regulatory measures and do not conflict with ILO Conventions. The administrative agency may issue a correction order after obtaining a resolution from the Labor Relations Commission. This process is intended to prevent unintended harm and reduce confusion or conflict by promptly addressing illegal provisions in collective agreements while ensuring that correction orders are only issued after the Labor Relations Commission – a quasi-judicial, independent body – has rendered a decision. If a union considers a correction order to be an excessive or arbitrary infringement on its internal affairs, it may file an administrative lawsuit to seek its revocation. In such cases, the court may make a substantive judgment on the legality of the correction order. The Government affirms that the actions taken were done so in accordance with these procedural guarantees which found the relevant provisions in the collective agreements to concern matters pertaining to policy decisions or management and operations of institutions excluded from collective bargaining. As regards the specifics of this case, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, on 22 December 2023, the Songpa-gu Office and the KGEU Songpa-gu chapter implemented corrective measures after achieving a mutual agreement to comply with the order.
26. 616. The Committee observes that a number of the provisions which the Government explains should have been excluded from collective bargaining include matters that would appear to fall within the definition of the scope of collective bargaining relating to working conditions, relations between employers and workers and between employers and employees’ organizations. In particular, the Committee observes that basic provisions, including a general recognition of the validity of collective agreement provisions that are more favourable than the legislation, provisions entitling workers to participate in union activities during working hours and those granting a special holiday on International Workers’ Day were considered contrary to the legislation. The Committee further notes from the information provided by the Government that the correction orders concerned agreements that had been in force apparently without issue over several years.
27. 617. The Committee recalls that it already considered the restrictions provided for in section 8(1) and section 10(1) of the Public Officials Labour Union Act, in the context of Case No. 1865, and had requested the Government to ensure that the following principles were respected in the framework of the application of that Act: (1) that in the case of negotiations with trade unions of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State, the autonomy of the bargaining parties is fully guaranteed and the reservation of budgetary powers to the legislative authority does not have the effect of preventing compliance with collective agreements; more generally, as regards negotiations on matters for which budgetary restrictions pertain, to ensure that a significant role is given to collective bargaining and that agreements are negotiated and implemented in good faith; (2) that the consequences of policy and management decisions if they relate to the conditions of employment of public employees are not excluded from negotiations with public employees’ trade unions (see Report No. 346, paragraph 806). The Committee further recalls that in order to maintain harmonious professional relationships in the public sector, respect of the principles of non interference, the recognition of the most representative organizations and party autonomy in negotiations is required. A legislative provision which prohibits public authorities and public employees, even those not engaged in the administration of the State, from concluding an agreement, even if they are willing to do so, is contrary to the principle of free and voluntary negotiations. The Committee further recalls that the public authorities should promote free collective bargaining and not prevent the application of freely concluded collective agreements, particularly when these authorities are acting as employers or have assumed responsibility for the application of agreements by countersigning them [see Compilation, paras 1472, 1473 and 1480].
28. 618. The Committee notes that conflict and obstacles remain with respect to the nature and scope of public servants collective bargaining rights and that the above-mentioned legislative provisions have been referred to, once again, in requests to alter the terms of collective agreements concluded, or in a letter pre-determining the scope of negotiable issues. The Committee therefore expects the Government to take the necessary measures to avoid future interference. Noting that the CEACR is already examining issues relating to the collective bargaining rights of public officials Public Officials Labour Union Act, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR.
29. 619. Finally, as regards the complainants’ allegations that the newly elected mayor of Jongno-gu had ceased all negotiations with the union and refused to convene any labour-management consultation meetings since May 2023, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the heightened conflict between the parties leading to accusations of unfair labour practices on one side (confirmed at the first instance) and on the other the holding of rallies and slanderous statements leading to the necessary intervention of the police which have rendered relations between the parties difficult. The Government nevertheless asserts that the Jongno-gu Office has never neglected to engage in bargaining with unions or refused to convene any labour management consultation meetings and has responded in accordance with due legal process to legitimate union activity requests. Observing that the conflictual relations between the parties have been exacerbated by the lack of clarity as to the nature and scope of the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights of government employees which have been differentially interpreted over time, the Committee considers that this is precisely a moment to engage in constructive and fruitful dialogue with the most representative social partners concerned with a view to establishing clear parameters to guide their future engagement on a basis of trust and mutual respect.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 620. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee recommends that the Government and the Korean Government Employees’ Union (KGEU) engage in discussions and consultations to ensure that public officials’ trade unions not properly considered as engaged in the administration of the State have the possibility to express their views publicly on the wider economic and social policy questions which have a direct impact on their members’ trade union interests. The Committee welcomes the Government’s information that several amendments to the State Public Officials Act are currently pending in the National Assembly to expand the political freedoms of government employees, including by allowing public officials to join political parties and easing restrictions on their participation in election campaigns.
   • (b) The Committee expects the Government to take the necessary measures, including through a review of the 2021 Labour Relations Manual, to ensure that public servants, including grade 6 team managers, enjoy the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and engage in legitimate trade union activities and that any decisions that may have been taken to demote or transfer grade 6 public officials due to their refusal to withdraw from the union are reversed and compensation provided for any financial loss or prejudiced suffered.
   • (c) Considering that penal sanctions for carrying out legitimate trade union activities are not conducive to harmonious labour relations, the Committee trusts that the Government will observe restraint in any further actions so as to avoid unnecessary conflict.
   • (d) The Committee expects the Government to take the necessary measures to avoid future interference in public sector collective bargaining by ensuring that the autonomy of the bargaining parties is fully guaranteed for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State and that the consequences of policy and management decisions if they relate to the conditions of employment of public employees are not excluded from negotiations.
   • (e) The Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.