Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Republic of Korea (Ratification: 2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Civil liberties. In its previous comment, in view of the significant restrictions on the political and civil liberties of public employees in the education sector, the Committee expressed its expectation that trade unions of public officials would be allowed to express their views publicly on the economic and social policy questions, which have a direct impact on the interests of their members, and that no sanction could be imposed on individual members for their support of a political party or expression of views on such issues. The Committee expected that these matters would be addressed in the ongoing review of the State Public Officials Act (SPOA). The Committee notes the Government’s views on the importance of ensuring neutrality of public employees and its indication that an amendment to the SPOA and related laws was proposed to the current session of the National Assembly, with the aims of easing restrictions on basic political rights of public officials by allowing them to join political parties or organizations and only prohibiting political acts using their status in an election. In view of the reiterated concerns of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) that the severe restrictions on the political freedoms of public employees and teachers, as well as legal penalties even for minor political expressions, cause a chilling effect on teachers, the Committee trusts that the SPOA will be amended to ease these restrictions and requests the Government to provide information on this process and its outcome.

Labour law reform. The Committee notes that, with regard to several points examined below, the Government indicates that amendments of the law are pending at the National Assembly. The Committee notes, however, the concerns expressed in this regard by the KCTU and the FKTU that several bills, which would have improved the compatibility of the law with the Convention, were passed by the National Assembly but were later vetoed by the President after objections from the Government. The Committee further notes that the Government asserts that most of the issues subject to amendment require in-depth social discussions and broad consensus. In view of the Government’s concerns regarding the need for social dialogue and consensus, the Committee expects measures to be taken to engage in full consultations with the social partners on the controversial points, if any, with a view to allowing the necessary amendments to be adopted without delay so as to ensure compatibility of the national legislation with the Convention, in line with the comments below.

Article 2. The right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee previously expressed its expectation that the legislative reform process concerning the extension of coverage of the definition of “worker” (section 2(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA)) would recognize and guarantee the right to establish and join organizations to all categories of workers, including independent self-employed and agricultural workers, as well as freelancers, workers in non-standard forms of employment and platform workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in practice, given the broad definition of workers in the TULRAA and the interpretations by the Supreme Court, freelancers or dependent self-employed workers are already establishing their own trade unions (parcel deliverymen, horse jockeys, bicyclists, water purifier sales and maintenance personnel, workbook tutors, actors, golf caddies, snack bar operators, car salesmen and platform workers, such as drivers). The Government adds that an amendment to the TULRAA, which aims to broaden the concept of workers in the law by adding dependent self-employed workers and labour providers, is currently before the National Assembly. The Committee notes, however, the observations of the FKTU that although an amendment which would have guaranteed the right to organize to various categories of workers, including special employment workers and platform workers (deletion of section 2(4) of the TULRAA), was adopted by the National Assembly, the President exercised the right to veto.

The Committee further notes in this regard the KCTU and the FKTU observations, pointing to rejection of unions’ application for certification, one of which included platform workers, while the other was composed of ready-mix concrete truck owners-operators (the authorities did not consider them as workers under the TULRAA). The KCTU adds that the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) views a number of trade unions of cargo truck owners-drivers, members of the Korean Public Service and Transport Workers’ Union (KPTU), as organizations representing business owners subject to the regulatory scrutiny of the Fair Trade Act (this led to an on-site inspection and later prosecution of union members for interfering with FTC investigation). The Government indicates that organizations, which allow non-workers, such as truck drivers who are independent contractors, to be members, cannot be considered as unions under the TULRAA and that an administrative lawsuit is currently pending on this issue at the Seoul Administrative Court. The Committee recalls in this respect that the Committee on Freedom of Association noted the continuous denial to recognize as trade unions, organizations of “especially employed” or “self-employed” truck drivers-owners and urged the Government to take all the necessary measures that these workers can fully exercise their freedom of association rights (Case No. 3439, 405th Report, March 2024, paragraph 555). Further recalling that independent self-employed and agricultural workers, as well as freelancers, workers in non-standard forms of employment and platform workers should be considered as workers for the purpose of application of the guarantees of the Convention and should thus enjoy the right to organize, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to effectively recognize and guarantee this right, both in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made, including any possible amendments of the TULRAA.

Public officials. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review the applicable legislation (sections 6(1) and (2) of the Public Officials Trade Union Act (POTUA), and sections 2(1) and 2-2 of the Foreign Service Officials Act), with a view to recognising the right of the categories of public officials excluded from the scope of the POTUA to establish and join organizations (see enumeration in the previous comment). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that prison staff are excluded from the right to organize due to their involvement in public security service and that where union membership is restricted for public officials, it is done in a reasonable manner, excluding those in a de facto employer position or acting on behalf of an employer, so as not to undermine the autonomy and independence of trade unions. While taking note of the above, the Committee recalls that the scope of the Convention covers all public officials, with the sole possible exception of the police and the armed forces and that even where senior public officials can be barred from joining unions of other workers from the public sector, this must be limited to those exercising senior managerial or policy-making responsibilities and they must be allowed to establish their own organizations. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request to the Government to take necessary measures, in full consultation with the social partners, to review the legislation with a view to recognising the right to organize to all public officials covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this respect.

The right to establish and join organizations without previous authorization. The Committee previously noted that, in some cases concerning self-employed workers or workers in non-standard forms of employment, the practice of the authorities when assessing registration requests amounted to a de facto authorization due to prolonged period of time the authorities took to determine whether all applicants could be qualified as “workers” under the TULRAA. The Committee expressed trust that the legislative review process concerning the definition of “worker” in section 2(1) of the TULRAA would resolve this matter. The Government provides detailed information about the registration system in the country, which, it asserts, does not amount to previous authorization and considers that whether or not members of a union are considered as workers requires a highly normative judgment so there may be cases where processing is inevitably delayed due to fact-checking. The Committee notes that the KCTU provides examples of cases where registration of unions was delayed over the question of whether all members were workers as defined by law. Recalling that a considerable delay in assessing the application for registration can amount to “a previous authorization”, the Committee refers to its comment above in relation to the definition of “worker” and trusts that any measures the Government will take in this regard will also address the issue of prolonged registration delays of organizations of self-employed workers and workers in non-standard forms of employment.

Article 3. The right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of orders to correct union bylaws, resolutions or measures conflicting with any labour-related law, issued pursuant to section 21(1) and (2) of the TULRAA. The Government reiterates that corrective orders under section 2 of the TULRAA constitute minimal interventions in trade union affairs, indicating that between 2019 and 2023, 11 such orders were made, all on the basis of complaints from the unions or their members. In the public sector, only two corrective orders were made according to a 2023 survey. The Committee also notes the information provided by the KCTU that a corrective order was filed regarding the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU) membership processing rules and that investigations are ongoing with respect to the alleged violations of corrective orders by the KMWU, the Korean Finance and Service Workers Union (KFSU), the Korean Government Employees’ Union (KGEU) and the Korean Chemical, Textile and Food Workers’ Union (KCTFU). The Committee trusts that any corrective orders issued are strictly limited to verifying that union rules follow a democratic process or are in line with national law, which itself is in conformity with the Convention.

The right to elect representatives in full freedom. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review sections 17(3) and 23(1) of the TULRAA, which exclude non-members, job seekers, the unemployed, ex-employees and those dismissed from the position of executive officers in enterprise-level unions, so as to ensure that unions can elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the limitation on non-workers to be elected as union officials is only applicable at the enterprise level and unions can thus change their structure to industry-level to allow non-employees to serve as union officers. The Government adds that the TULRAA also protects union officers from immediately losing eligibility as an officer during the determination of the legitimacy of the dismissal (section 5(3)). The Committee considers, however, that this would be insufficient to prevent interference in the election of representatives and observes that the Government does not elaborate on any other measures taken to review the above provisions. In view of the above and of the reiterated concerns of the KCTU and the FKTU that non-working union members are prohibited from being elected as union officials, the Committee reiterates its request.

Financial management. In its previous comment, in view of the concerns raised at an increased use of section 27 of the TULRAA (an obligation for trade unions to make a report on the results of settlement of accounts and the status of operation of the trade union at the request of administrative agencies), the Committee requested the Government to review this provision and take any necessary measures to ensure that it cannot be applied in a manner to interfere with the functioning of trade unions. The Government informs that the monitoring aims at avoiding and disclosing embezzlement of union funds, which is a continuing issue in the country but that section 27 of the TULRAA is not used on a regular basis (out of 48 complaints filed from unions between 2013 and 2022, the administrative authorities requested to disclose materials only in 12 cases). The Committee notes in this regard the observations of the KCTU, which considers that embezzlement of union funds is not a routine occurrence in the country and that the records requested by the Government in February 2023 related to all 319 unit and confederate unions with more than 1,000 members, which the judiciary recently found was an exercise of the Ministry’s general and comprehensive supervisory powers rather than motivated by specific reasons that could require investigation. The KCTU adds that any embezzlement related to its members was brought to public attention by the unions themselves through internal audits, rather than by use of section 27 of the TULRAA. While acknowledging the importance of ensuring that trade union funds are not misused, the Committee recalls that broad supervision of financial management of trade unions, including legislation that empowers administrative authorities to examine the books and other documents of an organization, are not compatible with the Convention and that verification should be carried only if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to review section 27 of the TULRAA and take necessary measures to ensure that it is not applied in a manner which can interfere with the functioning of trade unions.

Obligation to disclose financial information. Amendments of the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to reply to the KCTU observations that amendments to the above decrees require public disclosure of union accounting for unions with memberships exceeding 1,000 and to provide copies of both amended enforcement decrees. While noting the Government’s reiteration that the amendments aim at providing benefits to trade unions and ensuring their financial transparency and that union accounting can be disclosed through the public disclosure system, the Committee observes that the Government does not address the underlying issue reported by the KCTU that such disclosure of financial information is obligatory for trade unions with more than 1,000 members. The Committee further notes the KCTU and FKTU observations that they, as well as 90 per cent of their affiliates, have been using the system but that this is motivated by concerns that non-disclosure through the public system may disadvantage the unions or their affiliates (unions that do not use the public disclosure system may not deduct membership fees from taxes). The FKTU also highlights that employers’ organizations are exempt from such disclosure obligations, thus leading to an unequal treatment. The Government replies that, in addition to trade unions, public interest organizations are also required to disclose certain financial information and that employers’ organizations, due to their different characteristics and legal basis, have different and often stricter financial obligations. It also asserts that the financial information disclosure system is gradually being established as practice, that the deduction of taxes, in case of disclosure of financial information is a benefit, rather than an entitlement, and that non-disclosure does not entail any disadvantages. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether public disclosure of accounting is obligatory for unions with membership exceeding 1,000 and to take necessary measures to ensure that these requirements are not applied in a manner to interfere with the functioning of trade unions.

Inviolability of union premises. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the investigation conducted against the KCTU, the Korean Health and Medical Workers’ Union (KHMU), Kia Motors Workers’ Union, construction unions affiliated to the KCTU and the FKTU following raids on their premises. The Committee notes the Government’s assurances that any search or seizure have been and will be conducted on the basis of a judicial warrant, using legitimate methods and only to the extent necessary for investigations, but that the requested information on the outcome of the above investigations is not available (the Government does not keep such information and confidentiality applies to it). The Committee further notes that the KCTU highlights the disproportionate involvement of the police regarding the investigation of one individual in the KCTU premises (while five police investigators performed the search and seizure, over 700 police officers and fire trucks were based around the KCTU premises and a journalist was brought in to report on the incident, causing disruption and creating an impression that the union itself was under investigation). Recalling that the inviolability of union premises is an essential aspect of trade union rights protected under the Convention and that any search operations carried out on union premises should only be possible with a judicial warrant where there is good reason to presume that the search will produce evidence in criminal proceedings and where it is restricted to the purpose for which the warrant was issued, the Committee expects all measures to be taken to ensure that any search operations carried out on union premises are conducted in conformity with these principles, using legitimate methods and only to the extent necessary for the investigations.

The right to strike. Prohibition of strikes. Public officials and teachers. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the POTUA (prohibition of strikes of public officials) and repeal section 18 of the POTUA (sanctions for non-compliance), as well as sections 8 and 15(1) of the Teachers’ Trade Unions Act (TTUA) (prohibition of industrial action of teachers and sanctions for non-compliance). The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that strikes by public officials and teachers conflict with their role as servants of all citizens and with the right to education and that the ban on strikes was approved by the Constitutional Court. It further indicates that there are bills proposed in the National Assembly regarding the right to strike for public officials and teachers and that these matters should be reasonably decided through discussions and social consensus. The Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will be made to bring the above provisions into conformity with the freedom of association principles announced in detail in its previous comment and requests the Government to provide updates on any progress made in this regard.

Workers in major businesses of national defence industry and other workers excluded from the right to strike. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in respect of the KCTU observations on the prohibition to strike of workers in major businesses of national defence industry, registered security guards, special security guards at key national establishments and certain seafarers. The Committee notes that according to the Government: (i) among all workers in major businesses of national defence, only those engaged in the production of electricity, water or works listed by Presidential Decree, that is, production of military supplies, are excluded from the right to strike, which was also considered as constitutional by the Constitutional Court; (ii) special security guards at national security establishments (airports, ports, nuclear power plants) have similar characteristics than the police and the prohibition of industrial action promotes safety and normal functions of these establishments; and (iii) seafarers can engage in industrial actions but some restrictions are imposed in specific circumstances (in a foreign port, with passengers aboard, transport of dangerous articles, navigating under the command and steering by a captain) or when it could cause remarkable harm to the safety of people or the ship (section 25 of the Seafarers Act). The Committee notes that according to the KCTU, a case is currently under review at the Constitutional Court on the question of constitutionality of section 41(2) of the TULRAA, which excludes employees of major defence businesses from the right to strike. The KCTU indicates that transfer of union members from private-sector production lines to defence production lines in companies involved in both businesses remains an issue and is exacerbated by criminal prosecution of unionists for violation of section 41(2) of the TULRAA, even for conducting general assemblies, which were considered as unlawful industrial action. The Committee notes from the Government’s reply that the Labour Relations Commission did not consider the above transfers as unfair labour practices and the courts found that the instances of organizing general assemblies in companies producing national defence goods, were in fact industrial actions or had the effect of interfering with the normal operations of business. The Committee recalls that while the right to strike can be prohibited or restricted for the police and the armed forces, such restriction should not be extended to civilian personnel in military institutions except those employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, which include the security forces, water and electricity services or prison services. However, transport services, maintenance of ports and airports and port services and authorities are not considered as essential services. In line with the above, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that civilians working in military institutions, besides those engaged in essential services in the strict sense of the term, as outlined above, can effectively exercise their right to strike and are not arbitrarily transferred between services to avoid the exercise of this right.

Restrictions to the legitimate purposes of strike action. The Committee previously noted that the legislation did not allow strikes for purposes other than those directly related to an industrial dispute and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that expanding the scope of industrial action to include strikes related to social and economic issues, Government policies and sympathy strikes can cause confusion in labour-management relations, is highly contentious and requires sufficient social dialogue. It adds that a proposal to amend the TULRAA to expand the scope of industrial actions is before the National Assembly. The Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF) similarly asserts that expanding the purpose of legitimate labour disputes will cause confusion in workplaces. The KCTU points out, however, that the restrictive approach to the legitimate purpose of strikes has implications on freedom of association, as illustrated by the example of disciplinary actions taken against unionists leading a strike concerning government policies on railways privatization. The Committee further notes the KCTU indication that although a bill amending section 2(5) of the TULRAA passed the plenary session, it was vetoed by the President. While taking note of the Government’s and KEF’s concerns, the Committee recalls that limiting the legitimate purpose of strikes to issues directly related to an industrial dispute deprives workers and their organizations of an essential means of action to protect their legitimate interests. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in full consultations with the social partners, to ensure that strike action can be used in situations others than those directly related to an industrial dispute, including in relation to the Government’s economic or social policies or in the form of sympathy strikes.

Subcontracted workers. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to identify and remove the legal and practical obstacles to the effective exercise of the right to strike by subcontracted workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while trade unions of subcontracted workers have the right to take collective action against their employers, the Supreme Court denied the employer status to primary contractors, indicating that an explicit or implicit employment contract relationship was required. The Government further asserts that an amendment to the TULRAA which would broaden the scope of employers to include those who are in the position to effectively and specifically control and determine working conditions even if they are not direct parties to the employment contract, is abstract, vague and may lead to legal uncertainties; it thus would not be in line with the national legal framework. Sharing the Government’s views, the KEF states that an expanded definition of employers would severely oppress the free form of contract and the right to decision-making. The KCTU indicates that a bill which proposed to expand the definition of employer passed the plenary session at the National Assembly but was once again vetoed by the President and emphasizes that the lack of action to protect the right to strike of subcontracted workers, including their replacement by contractors who are not considered as employers, often leads to violent clashes. The KCTU also points to a lower court decision which considered the original contractor as the de-facto employer of the subcontracted workers; the decision is currently pending at the Supreme Court in appeal. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to engage in full consultations with the social partners with a view to clearly identifying and removing the legal and practical obstacles to the effective exercise of the right to strike of subcontracted workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Public sector essential services. The Committee previously noted that national legislation did not totally prohibit strikes in essential services but required a level of continued maintenance and operation of business which substantially restricted the effectiveness of strikes. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the level of minimum service in public essential services be determined with the participation of the social partners and be genuinely a minimum service. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the determination of the minimum level of maintenance is done by workers and employers of each workplace and, if no agreement can be reached, by the Committee on Special Conciliation of the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC), which is an independent quasi-judicial body and in which the parties participate by providing opinions and determining the validity of any agreement reached. The Committee notes, however, the concerns raised by the KCTU that, according to a report of the Korean Society of Labour Law, the minimum service is generally determined by the NLRC due to employers’ refusal to accept autonomous collective bargaining and that members of its decision-making task force are government-appointed only, with workers and employers participating as direct parties but not in decisions. It also argues that the possibility to replace striking workers in practice results in employers replacing 90 to 100 per cent of the workers, as was the case of the 2016 strike in the railways sector, thus neutralizing the effect of strikes. The Government replies that the study was only conducted in eight workplaces, where the retention rate (minimum work rate maintained during the industrial action) varied between 30 and 100 per cent. In view of the above, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take necessary measures to ensure that the level of minimum service in public essential services is genuinely a minimum service (limited to the operations which are strictly necessary while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressures brought to bear) and that the parties can actively engage in its determination.

Quorum and majority required to call a strike. The Committee previously noted that industrial action required the vote of a majority of union members, which was excessive, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review section 41(1) of the TULRAA. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the requirement of a majority approval from union members employed has been maintained during past revisions of the applicable regulations on the basis of social dialogue between workers, employers and the Government; setting a quorum for voting for or against an industrial action based on the votes cast, rather than union members employed, can distort the will of all union members and therefore requires careful consideration and social consensus among the stakeholders. Recalling once again that requiring a decision by over half of the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take necessary measures to review section 41(1) of the TULRAA to ensure that, if a vote by workers is required before a strike can be held, account should only be taken of the votes cast.

Civil liability and penal sanctions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that despite protection against penal sanctions for peacefully exercising the right to strike (section 4 of the TULRAA), both the Penal Code and the TULRAA allowed for penal sanctions for several types of strikes. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that legitimate industrial action is granted civil and criminal immunities, but if it is accompanied by violence, destruction or full-scale workplace occupation, there can be penal sanctions. In particular, it informs that section 4 of the TULRAA only provides criminal immunity for legitimate trade union activities, which do not involve obstruction of business, but clarifies that the offence is only applicable in cases of violence or destruction (since 2017 there has been no prosecution for obstruction of business for the simple refusal to provide labour). While taking note of the above, the Committee observes that, according to the KCTU, the concept of “obstruction of business by the threat of force” (forcibility) in section 314 of the Penal Code is so broad as to curtail workers’ legitimate exercise of the right to strike and that, contrary to the Government’s indication, the Constitutional Court upheld the application of section 314 to peaceful strikes. In this regard, the Government refers to the case law of the Supreme Court, upheld by the Constitutional Court, which narrowed down the concept of “forcibility” of the crime of obstruction of business by using the criteria of suddenness (could not have been predicted) and severity (causes serious disruption or enormous damage to business operations). The Committee notes from the KCTU observations that a legislative amendment concerning the grounds for exemption from civil liability, such as strikes in response to unlawful or illegal practices of the employers, passed at the National Assembly but was vetoed by the President. The Committee also recalls that the final provisions of the TULRAA set out penal sanctions for several types of strikes regardless of their peaceful character. While emphasizing that the principles of freedom of association do not protect violent industrial action or action which breaches national legislation (as long as the legislation itself is in conformity with the Convention), the Committee recalls that no penal sanctions should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike; therefore, measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed on any account. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take all necessary measures, including legislative, to ensure that workers and their organizations are not subject to penal sanctions for their engagement in peaceful industrial action and to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on any cases in which workers and unions were held liable for the damages resulting from a strike or were sentenced to imprisonment for participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not possess information on cases where unionists were sentenced to imprisonment for participation in strikes. It further informs that the Ministry of Employment and Labour conducted a survey on damage claim lawsuits filed against trade unions: between 2009 and 2022, there were 151 lawsuits, out of which 142 concerned claims in workplaces affiliated to the KCTU; one of the major reasons for the lawsuits was the suspension of production lines due to workplace occupation, which was often accompanied by the threat of force or physical assaults and injuries. The Government adds that there is currently a proposal at the National Assembly to amend the TULRAA with an objective to limit claims for damage compensation by prohibiting such claims under certain conditions, as well as prohibiting excessive claims and setting thresholds for damage compensation amount. The KEF considers that the amendment proposal overly protects certain unions and would only encourage illegal strikes. The KCTU indicates that a study of almost 200 court decisions ordering strike-related compensation found that the reasons for strikes were in most cases employers’ refusal to participate in collective bargaining, unlawful dismissals or dispatches of workers, destruction of unions and other violations, showing insufficient protection of the right to strike and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in the amendment of the TULRAA regarding civil claims for damage compensation and to send a copy of the amended law.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the observations of the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), received on 6 September and 5 October 2024, respectively, and of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 17 September 2024. These observations, together with the Government replies thereto, are examined below.

Civil liberties. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC and the KCTU, which denounce a climate of intimidation and repression fuelled by the Government, demonstrated by systematic disruption of protests by the police, violent attacks and harassment of unionists, as well as criminalization of union activities. They point to specific incidents in 2023 and 2024, including a special police investigation targeting unionists in the construction sector (950 unionists were summoned for investigation, 16 remain detained and 1 set himself on fire to protest harassment by the authorities) and excessive police violence against two leaders of the Federation of Korean Metalworkers’ Trade Unions (FKMTU) during a sit-in protest in May 2023. The Committee notes that the Government does not refute these incidents but asserts that police investigation and crackdowns were motivated by unlawful activities and unreasonable practices (threats, coercion, obstruction of work) in the construction sector and were conducted in accordance with the law, irrespective of the group or organization involved (4,829 workers were referred to the Prosecutor with 148 arrested and 144 found guilty so far and more than 1,950 construction sites were investigated for suspicion of illegal subcontracting). Regarding the incidents with the FKMTU leadership, the Government states that the sit-in protest was located on a scaffolding built by the unionists, causing inconvenience to commuters and presenting a significant security risk and that the unionists became violent when police approached them.

The Committee previously requested information on any charges pending against members of the KCTU (Mr Yang Kyeung-soo, Mr Youn Taeg-gun and 40 other unionists) in relation to the rallies and the general strike of 2021 and the progress and outcome of the judicial process in their cases. While noting the Government’s explanation that it does not separately keep track of this information and that details regarding individuals under investigation are not subject to disclosure, the Committee notes from the KCTU observations that Mr Yang and Mr Youn were sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment, respectively, and fined.

While acknowledging the challenges for freedom of assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well the challenges for the State authorities to control potentially unlawful measures in certain sectors, the Committee recalls the importance of civil liberties, in particular the right to freedom and security of person, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly, for the full development of freedom of association. Noting with concern the allegations of a climate of repression against trade unionists, including the above incidents of violence and mass investigations, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that basic civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, which are a prerequisite for the exercise of trade union rights protected by the Convention, are fully respected by State authorities in the management of public protests, rallies and when taking law enforcement measures against trade unionists, so as to avoid undue restrictions on the exercise of freedom of association.

The Committee further observes with concern that, on 3 December 2024, the President declared martial law, imposing important restrictions on several civil liberties. While observing that the martial law was lifted the next day, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that this situation and any measures that may result therefrom do not restrict the rights protected by the Convention and in particular the civil liberties necessary for the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2026.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report. The Committee notes the observations of the Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF) communicated with the Government’s report and the Government reply thereto. The Committee also notes the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) received on 2 and 8 September 2023, as well as the observations of Education International (EI), IndustriALL Global Union, and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) received on 31 August, 1 and 27 September 2023 respectively, which concern matters examined in this comment, and the Government replies thereto. The Committee further notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) has referred to it the legislative aspects of Case No. 1865 concerning the Republic of Korea [see 404th Report, paragraph 76], which are examined in this comment.

Civil liberties. The Committee notes the joint observations of the ITUC and ITF concerning the arrest, detention, criminal prosecution and sentencing of KCTU leaders and members in relation to their trade union activities: Mr Kim Myung-hwan and three staff members were arrested and held in pre-trial detention under criminal charges of obstruction of public duties, public traffic, trespassing, and destruction of public goods during the union mobilisations against certain amendments to labour laws in March and April 2019. Mr Kim was sentenced to two years imprisonment with four years’ suspension. During the Covid-19 pandemic Mr Yang Kyeung-soo and Mr Youn Taeg-gun were arrested and charged for violation of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the Criminal Code, in relation to trade union rallies in June and July 2021 and a general strike called by the union on 20 October 2021 to demand jobs and better working conditions in view of the impact of the pandemic. Mr Yang was sentenced to one year imprisonment (suspended) and a fine of 3 million KRW. Mr Youn was released after 94 days of detention as a court ruled that his continued detention was not justified. Many more unionists were summoned for participation in the 2021 rallies, 19 were indicted and brought to trial and 21 were under summary order. The Committee also notes the observations of EI denouncing the significant restriction of the political and civil liberties of Korean teachers in public schools and employees of the State education administration; indicating that in some instances teachers faced legal repercussions for minimal political engagement, such as liking a political post on social media. EI further states that during the election for seventeen regional education superintendents on 1 June 2022, teachers in primary and secondary education and teachers’ unions were unable to express their opinions due to legal prohibitions. The Committee notes that section 3 of the Teachers’ Trade Unions Act (TTUA), prohibits the engagement of teachers’ unions in any political activities and section 4 of the Public Officials Trade Union Act (POTUA), equally provides that a trade union and its members shall not engage in political activities. Furthermore, sections 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act (SPOA) and 58(1) of Local Public Officials Act (LPOA) provide that “no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labour campaign, or activities, other than public services”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these rules intend to ensure the political impartiality of education and protect it from undue influence and interference from political forces. The Government further adds that several amendments to the SPOA are currently pending in the National Assembly. The Committee recalls the fundamental importance of civil liberties, in particular the right to freedom and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly, for the full development of freedom of association. The Committee further recalls that the CFA had requested 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 and no longer take disciplinary action against public servants for their individual support of a political party or expression of views about government socio-economic policy affecting workers’ interests [see Case No. 1865, 404th Report, paragraph 69(e)]. The Committee expects that these principles will be considered in the current process of review of the SPOA and requests the Government to provide information on this process and its outcome. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on any charges pending against members of the KCTU indicted in relation to the rallies and the general strike of 2021 and the progress and outcome of the judicial process in their cases.

Article 2. The right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee notes that section 2(4)(d) of Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA), as revised in 2021, provides that an organization where those who are not workers are allowed to join shall not be regarded as a trade union; and that section 2(1) of the same act defines the term “worker” as “any person who lives on wages, a salary, or any other income equivalent thereto, regardless of the person’s occupation”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 2021 legislative review ended the exclusion of dismissed and unemployed workers from the scope of the TULRAA and that the Supreme Court of Korea has found that the right to organize for dependent self-employed workers must also be guaranteed. The Committee also notes the observation of the KCTU that the Supreme Court criteria emphasize “economic dependence” and therefore, independent self-employed individuals, freelancers and agricultural workers find it challenging to secure recognition as workers under TULRAA. The FKTU observes the same point and adds that atypical workers such as transportation workers and platform workers in non-standard forms of employment which are becoming more prevalent are similarly not clearly covered by the TULRAA definition of worker. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that those in liberal professions and purely self-employed can enjoy freedom of association through general associations; that the July 2021 amendment of TULRAA allowed the self-employed to join trade unions and that an amendment of section 2(1) aiming at including workers in special types of employment and platform workers in the definition of “workers” is currently pending in the National Assembly. The Government adds that both the Supreme Court and administrative authorities tend to acknowledge the worker status of those in special types of employment. Recalling that independent self-employed and agricultural workers, as well as freelancers, workers in non-standard forms of employment and platform workers must be guaranteed the rights enshrined in the Convention, the Committee expects that the legislative reform process concerning the extension of coverage of the definition of “worker” in section 2(1) of the TULRAA will effectively recognize and guarantee to all these categories of workers the right to establish and join organizations and requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this respect.

Public officials. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 6(1) of the POTUA, read in conjunction with section 2 of the SPOA and sections 2(1) and 2-2 of the Foreign Service Officials Act, the following categories of public officials are excluded from the scope of the POTUA: (i) foreign service officials in positions equal to or higher than the class of counsellor prescribed by Presidential Decree and those belonging to senior executive service; (ii) public officials in political service, including those in charge of affairs regarding sophisticated policy decision-making or of assisting such affairs; and (iii) public officials in “extraordinary service”, namely those designated by statutes or regulations as in extraordinary civil service to perform such assistance duties as secretary, or to perform any specified duties. Furthermore, the Committee notes that pursuant to section 6(2) of the POTUA, the following categories are also excluded: (i) public officials who exercise the right to direct and supervise other public officials whose main jobs are different or engage in generally managing other public officials’ affairs; (ii) public officials whose main duties, such as managing personnel and remuneration or mediating and overseeing labour relations, are deemed to be incompatible with their status as members of a trade union and; (iii) public officials who engage in correction, investigation, public well-being and national security duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in reply to the observations of the KCTU, that restrictions on union membership of public officials who are in a de facto employer status, act on behalf of employers, or are involved in correction, investigation and other duties related to public safety and national security are intended to prevent potential interference with the autonomy and independence of trade unions. Concerning senior public officials, the Committee recalls that to bar these public servants from the right to join trade unions which represent other workers in the public sector is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association, but on two conditions: (i) senior public officials should be entitled to establish their own organizations to defend their interests; and (ii) the legislation should limit this category to persons exercising senior managerial or policy-making responsibilities. Furthermore, the Committee has always considered that while the exclusion of the armed forces and the police from the right to organize is not contrary to the provisions of the Convention, the same cannot be said for prison staff [see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 66 and 69]. Recalling that the scope of the Convention covers all public officials, with the sole exception of the police and the armed forces, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in full consultation with the social partners, to review the legislation and bring it into conformity with the above principles, with a view to recognising the right of the excluded categories of public officials to establish and join organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.

The right to establish and join organizations without previous authorization. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 12(3)1 of the TULRAA, read in conjunction with section 2(4)d of the same act, an organization that allows persons that are not “workers” to join will not be issued a certificate of report, in other words their registration request will be rejected. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU in this respect, indicating that in practice, the administrative agencies sometimes take a long time (several months to more than one year) to evaluate the qualifications of the applicant organization, especially when they focus on determining if the members qualify as workers. The KCTU provides the following examples: the National Insurance Salespersons’ Trade Union (one year and four months), the National Proxy Drivers’ Trade Union (one year and two months), and the Riders’ Union, organized by delivery drivers (three months). The KCTU further observes that in the case of the Korean Self-Employed Workers’ Union, organized by merchants in traditional markets and alleyway markets, the establishment report was rejected. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply according to which, as the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have ruled that administrative authorities do not possess any discretionary authority in processing reports on the establishment of trade unions the trade union establishment reporting system is not considered a permission system. The Government adds that upon receiving a report on union establishment, a certificate of establishment must be issued within three days and while there may be some delays exceptionally if a report on union establishment needs supplementation due to omissions or errors in the document, the certificate’s effect will retroactively apply from the time of submission once it is issued. In view of the foregoing, the Committee notes that although as a general rule the law does not require previous authorization for the establishment of organizations, and formalities of registration are not unduly complicated, in practice in certain cases concerning self-employed workers or workers in non-standard forms of employment, the authorities have taken a long time to determine whether the applicants could be qualified as “workers” under the TULRAA, and at least in one case the registration application was rejected. The Committee notes that in such cases, it may be considered that the conditions of obtention of registration have amounted to a de facto requirement of previous authorization, in absence of which legitimate trade union activities could not be exercised. The Committee notes that this issue is related to the perceived limits of the definition of “worker” in section 2(1) of the TULRAA and expects that the conclusion of the legislative review process concerning that definition will effectively resolve this matter.In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the administrative authorities in charge of registration of trade unions, process all applications swiftly and in accordance with the principle that registration formalities should not amount to a requirement of previous authorization. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all cases where the question of “worker” qualification of members of the applicant organization has been raised in the process of registration, and to indicate the length and the outcome of such processes.

Article 3. The right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules. The Committee notes that section 21(1) and (2) of the TULRAA provide that if it is deemed that union bylaws, resolutions or measures conflict with any labour-related Act or subordinate statute, the administrative agencies may, with the resolution of the Labour Relations Commission, order the correction thereof. The order is to be performed within 30 days upon reception, which is extendable if there is a justifiable reason. The Committee further notes that section 93(2) of TULRAA provides that a person who violates such a correction order is liable to a fine not exceeding KRW 5 million. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the KCTU observation in this respect, indicating that this is a minimal level of intervention to prevent undermining of democratic and autonomous operations of trade unions by a few members; the Government has issued corrective orders in cases where unfair practices were identified, such as the use of bylaws to prohibit collective withdrawal from higher organizations or to obstruct changes in the organizational structure of local branches and offices in violation of legal provisions guaranteeing freedom of such changes. The Government further indicates that trade unions can contest the corrective order issued by administrative agencies through an administrative appeal or administrative proceedings. Noting the information provided on the application of section 21 of the TULRAA, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of corrective orders issued pursuant to section 21(1) and (2), indicating the unions concerned, the grounds on which the corrective orders were based, the number of violations, and the amounts of any fines assessed for such violations.

The right to elect representatives in full freedom. The Committee notes that sections 17(3) and 23(1) of the TULRAA, as amended in 2021, provide that the representatives and executive officers of a union organized for a business, or a place of business shall be elected from among members engaged in the relevant business or place of business. The Committee notes the observation of the KCTU in this regard, that this provision excludes non-members, job seekers, the unemployed, ex-employees, and those dismissed (excluding those awaiting reconsideration after filing for unfair labour practices with the National Labour Relations Commission) from serving as executive officers in enterprise-level unions. The Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that given the role of enterprise-level union officials in making decisions related to working conditions at the enterprise, allowing external individuals with limited knowledge of a company’s internal operations to become union officers could potentially hinder effective bargaining as representatives of workers or compromise their ability to fully represent the interests of employed workers. The Government adds that industrial level unions are not bound by the restriction set in sections 17(3) and 23(1) and even if a trade union was initially established as an enterprise level union, it can be changed to an industrial union if the members wish to elect the dismissed or the unemployed as union officers. The Committee recalls that provisions such as sections 17(3) and 23(1) of the TULRAA infringe the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons (such as full-time union officers or pensioners) from being elected, or by depriving them of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons among their own ranks. There is also a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers which deprives them of their trade union office (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 102). Therefore, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to review sections 17(3) and 23(1) of the TULRAA to ensure that enterprise-level unions’ freedom to elect their representatives is duly guaranteed, by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of those organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

Financial management. The Committee notes that section 27 of the TULRAA establishes an obligation for trade unions to make a report on the results of settlement of accounts and the status of operation of the trade union at the request of administrative agencies. The Committee notes that this provision does not determine the intervals at which such reports can be requested, or the grounds that would justify such a request, and therefore appears to give full discretion to administrative authorities in this regard. Section 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA only provides in this respect that the administrative agencies shall demand the trade union report in writing 10 days in advance by specifying the grounds and other necessary matters. Finally, the Committee notes that section 96(1)2 of the TULRAA sanctions the failure to comply with a section 27 request by an administrative fine. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU indicating that while in the past, section 27 was rarely applied, the practice has changed recently : on 1 February 2023 the Ministry of Employment and Labour (MOEL), invoking section 27, requested 319 unit organizations of trade unions and federations and confederations—with memberships exceeding 1,000 (comprising 240 unions in private sector and 79 public official and teacher unions) to submit self-inspection results and supporting documents to the administrative agencies within their jurisdiction by 15 February 2023. The KCTU and FKTU observe that administrative agencies are now requiring unit trade unions and associated organizations with memberships surpassing 1,000 to provide inspection results and relevant documentation, irrespective of any internal requests from the union. The KCTU indicates that itself and the FKTU were fined for having rejected the MOEL’s request. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to these observations indicating that the recent monitoring aimed to assess the trade unions’ compliance with the obligation to keep and retain documents outlined in article 14 of the TULRAA. In this context, the Government requested unions to submit a minimal set of evidence materials (one cover page, one main page), instead of requiring access to all the documents kept at their office. This aimed to ensure that the necessary documents are kept without the need for physical visits to the office. The Government further indicates that in the case of 39 trade unions which refused to submit the requested documents, administrative investigations were conducted to verify the existence of finance-related records and documents, without however confirming the details of the documents or making copies. The Committee recalls that supervision of financial management of trade unions is compatible with the Convention when it is limited to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports; verification can be carried out if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law and, is limited to cases in which a significant number of workers (for example, 10 per cent) call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement or lodge a complaint. It would be incompatible with the Convention if the law gives the authorities powers of control which go beyond these principles, for example when the law empowers the administrative authority to examine the books and other documents of an organization, conduct an investigation and demand information at any time (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 109–110). In view of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with social partners, to review section 27 of the TULRAA and take any necessary measures to ensure that it cannot be applied in a manner so as to interfere with the functioning of trade unions in line with the principles recalled above.

Obligation to disclose financial information. Amendments of the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU, referring to amendments to the above decrees that would facilitate the publication of union settlement of account results on a public disclosure system managed by the MOLE in general and require such disclosure for unions with memberships exceeding 1’000. The Committee notes the Government reply indicating that section 11-9 of the amended Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA does not impose an obligation on trade unions to externally disclose the results of settlement of accounts. Furthermore, pursuant to section 80 of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, when unions voluntarily notify their accounting to the disclosure system, they are granted tax credits for union dues. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the KCTU observation concerning the requirement that unions with memberships exceeding 1000 disclose their accounting and to provide copies of both amended enforcement decrees.

Inviolability of union premises. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC and ITF, concerning raids on the offices of several trade unions in various cities operated by Korean Intelligence Agency (NIS) and National Police Agency on 18 and 19 January 2023. The targeted unions were the KCTU and the Korean Health and Medical Workers’ Union (KHMU), Kia Motors Workers’ Union, construction unions affiliated to the KCTU as well as the FKTU. According to the observations, the offices of the KHMU were searched by 20 NIS and NPA officials. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the investigations were carried out on the ground of criminal charges such as threats, compulsion, unlawful assembly and violation of the “National Security Act,” and that search and seizures against union offices were carried out to the minimum extent possible based on court-issued warrants. The Committee recalls that workers’ organizations should enjoy inviolability of their premises, correspondence and communications and that searches should only be possible when a warrant has been issued for that purpose by the regular judicial authority, when the latter is satisfied that there is good reason to presume that such a search will produce evidence for criminal proceedings under the ordinary law, and provided the search is restricted to the purpose for which the warrant was issued (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 114). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that any search operations carried out on union premises are in conformity with the above principles and to provide information on the outcome of the investigation conducted against the trade unions mentioned above and send copies of any judicial rulings issued.

The right to strike. Prohibition of strikes. Public officials and teachers. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 11 of the POTUA, unions of public officials and their members shall not take any action, including strikes, work slowdowns or any other activities undermining normal business operation. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 8 of TTUA, teachers’ unions and their members shall not conduct strikes, sabotage or any other industrial actions of interfering with the normal operation of business. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 2 of TTUA, teachers include kindergarten personnel; principals, assistant principals, and teachers in elementary, medium and high schools as well as in civic, technical and special schools and; the deans, heads and faculty members of higher education institutions in both private and public sectors. The Committee further notes that section 18 of the POTUA and section 15(1) of the TTUA provide that non-compliance with the abovementioned provisions would entail imprisonment with labour not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million (US$38,000). The Committee recalls in this regard that in the view of the Committee, the maintenance of minimum services in the event of strikes should only be possible in certain situations, namely: (i) in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (or essential services “in the strict sense of the term”); (ii) in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, but in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population; and (iii) in public services of fundamental importance (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 136). In these cases, compensatory guarantees should be provided for workers who are deprived of the right to strike. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the nature of the position and duties of public officials and the significant impact of the suspension or closure of public services on the entire population as the reasons for banning strikes of public officials and also indicates that the working conditions of public officials must be determined through a democratic process not exposed to undue pressure of industrial actions. Concerning teachers, the Government indicates that their collective refusal to conduct classes can infringe the students’ right to education which is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Committee recalls that to ensure that the basic needs of the users of important public services are met, the introduction of a negotiated minimum service can be considered as an alternative to the total prohibition of strikes. By extending the strike ban to all public officials within the scope of the POTUA, regardless of their exercising authority in the name of the State, and to education sector workers in both public and private sectors, sections 11 of the POTUA and 8 of the TTUA infringe the rights of those workers and their organizations under the Convention. In view of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the POTUA with a view to ensuring that only public officials exercising authority in the name of the State are excluded from the right to strike: and repeal section 18 of the POTUA, as well as sections 8 and 15(1) of the TTUA with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the above principles. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken in this respect.

Workers in major businesses of national defence industry and other workers excluded from the right to strike. The Committee notes section 41(2) of the TULRAA pursuant to which workers engaged in a major business of the national defence industry who are involved in production of electricity, water, or a work of mainly producing national defence goods shall not conduct industrial actions and that section 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA provides that these workers are those engaged in the business of manufacture, processing, assembly, maintenance, reproduction, amelioration, performance test, heat treatment, painting and gas handling, etc. which are required for completion of the defence industry products. Section 88 of the TULRAA punishes violation of this prohibition by imprisonment with labour for up to five years or a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU in this respect, indicating that while the authorities have always justified the prohibition of section 41(2) with reference to the inter-Korean confrontation and national security considerations, currently a significant part of the products of the major defence corporations are exported and workers may engage in other production in parallel or be transferred to other areas. According to KCTU, some employers take advantage of this strike-free status, not responding to collective bargaining requests in good faith, and by practices such as transferring all the union members to defence production lines and moving all the non-unionized workers to commercial production line. The Committee further notes that according to the KCTU, registered security guards, special security guards in charge of security at key national establishments, and certain seafarers are prohibited from engaging in industrial action pursuant to the special laws defining their status and violations by any of these groups is subject to criminal penalties. Recalling that the exception concerning the police and armed forces should not be extended to civilian personnel (except those employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term), the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect of the KCTU observations.

Restrictions to the legitimate purposes of strike action. The Committee notes that the CFA has referred to it the issue of the narrow interpretation of the legitimate goals of strike action which is limited to industrial disputes [see 404th Report, paragraphs 69(f) and 76]. The Committee notes the observation of the KCTU in this respect, referring to a 2011 ruling of the Supreme Court providing that only: (i) matters within an employer’s disposal, and (ii) subjects of collective bargaining (such as wage and working hour determination) can be deemed valid strike purposes. The KCTU adds that in this perspective not only strikes against Government economic and social policies affecting workers and sympathy strikes are excluded, but also, as the subjects of collective bargaining are narrowly defined to exclude corporate restructuring (layoffs or mergers) as the object of managerial decisions, the law leaves only few matters over which unions are permitted to have recourse to strike. The KCTU adds that the National Human Rights Commission addressed a recommendation to the speaker of the National Assembly, suggesting the expansion of the definition of labour disputes in section 2(5) of the TULRAA to encompass “management issues such as restructuring leading to altered work conditions and workers’ socioeconomic status improvement”. The Committee notes with interest that on 9 November 2023, the Korean National Assembly adopted an amendment to the definition of “industrial disputes” in section 2(5) of the TULRAA. The Committee notes the Government’s reply which does not call into question the KCTU observations and instead refers to the consequences of the expansion of the scope of industrial actions on non-participating workers, the employer and the public, and indicates that the subject can be legislated through extensive social dialogue. In view of the foregoing, the Committee notes that the narrow interpretation of the legitimate purposes of strikes entails that in the Republic of Korea, strikes relating to the Government’s economic and social policies, sympathy strikes, strikes calling for the recognition and exercise of fundamental liberties are deemed illegal. The Committee recalls that in its view, trade unions and employers organizations responsible for defending socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use, respectively, strike action or protest action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members. Moreover, noting that a democratic system is fundamental for the free exercise of trade union rights, the Committee considers that, in a situation in which they deem that they do not enjoy the fundamental liberties necessary to fulfil their mission, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in calling for the recognition and exercise of these liberties and that such peaceful claims should be considered as lying within the framework of legitimate trade union activities, including in cases when such organizations have recourse to strikes. With regard to so-called “sympathy” strikes, the Committee considers that a general prohibition of this form of strike action could lead to abuse, particularly in the context of globalization characterized by increasing interdependence and the internationalization of production, and that workers should be able to take such action, provided that the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 124–125). While welcoming the amendment of section 2(5) of the TULRAA, which broadens the scope of legitimate purposes of strike in the framework of industrial disputes, the Committee notes that the law still does not recognize that strike action can be taken for purposes not directly related to an industrial dispute between the workers and the employer, and therefore it deprives workers and their organizations of an essential means of action to protect their legitimate interests. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation in this regard and requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended section 2(5) of the TULRAA.

Subcontracted workers. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU indicating that under the current law, subcontracted workers meet serious obstacles to the legal exercise of their right to strike, as it is considered that only disputes relating to collective bargaining are valid grounds for strike while the main contractors successfully obstruct the attempts of the organizations representing subcontracted workers to engage in bargaining, arguing that they have no obligation to bargain in the absence of a direct employment relationship. Recalling that like other workers, subcontracted workers should be able to promote and defend their economic and social interests through, among others, recourse to industrial action, the Committee requests the Government, in full consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to identify the legal and practical obstacles to the effective exercise of this right and to ensure their removal. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

Public sector essential services. The Committee notes that section 42-2(1) of the TULRAA defines an “essential business” as a business whose suspension or discontinuance may seriously endanger the safety of the lives, health or bodies of the public and the daily life of the public. The Committee notes that the list of essential businesses (table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA) includes services of railroads and urban railroads, airlines, water utilities, electricity and gas utilities, petroleum refining and supply, hospitals and blood supply, the Bank of Korea, and telecommunications businesses. The Committee further notes that strikes are not prohibited in essential businesses, but “industrial action is performed while justifiably maintaining and operating the essential business” (42-5 TULRAA), The “necessary minimum level of maintenance and operation” is defined by agreement of the parties (42-3 TULRAA), or, in absence of such agreement, by decision of the Labour Relations Commission (42-4). Finally, the Committee notes that stopping, discontinuing or impeding of the “justifiable maintenance and operation” in essential businesses is prohibited (section 42-2(2)) and punished by imprisonment with labour not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million (89.1 TULRAA); and that the law allows the employer to replace up to 50 per cent of striking workers (43(4) TULRAA). The Committee notes the KCTU’s observation indicating that in practice, the excessively high levels defined for maintenance of essential services – averaging 70 to 80 per cent and at times almost 100 per cent – nullify the impact of the strikes and often lead to extended public sector strikes, furthermore, the high levels defined have no expiry date and no procedure exists for reviewing them. The Committee finally notes that the authorization of hiring of workers during strike in the “essential public-service businesses” and the broadness of the list of the latter are among the legislative aspects that the CFA has referred to it in its last examination of Case No. 1865 [see 404th Report, paragraphs 75-76]. The Committee recalls that essential services, for the purposes of restricting or prohibiting the right to strike, are only those “the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”. This concept is not absolute in its nature in so far as a non-essential service may become essential if the strike exceeds a certain duration or extent, or as a function of the special characteristics of a country (for example, an island State) (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 131). The Committee notes that Korean law does not totally prohibit strikes in these services, nevertheless it requires a level of continued maintenance and operation of business which substantially restricts the effectiveness of strikes. In addition, the Committee notes that the law further restricts the impact of the strikes in these services by allowing the employers to replace up to half of the striking workers. The Committee considers that workers should be able to organize industrial action in the banking sector, in railways, transport services and public transport, air transport services and civil aviation, as well as in fuel distribution services and the hydrocarbon, natural gas and petrochemical sector (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 134). The Committee recalls that in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, but in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration can cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, and in public services of fundamental importance, a minimum service can be defined with the participation of the parties. Such a minimum service (i) must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and (ii) since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 136–137). In view of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the level of minimum service in public essential services be determined with the participation of the social partners and be genuinely a minimum service in line with the principles stated above. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

Quorum and majority required to call a strike. The Committee notes that section 41(1) of the TULRAA provides that industrial actions require a decision made by concurrent votes of a majority of the union members who are employed workers. Section 91 of the TULRAA punishes the violation of this rule by imprisonment with labour not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding KRW 10 million. Noting that section 41(1) requires the concurrent vote of the majority of all union members who are employed workers, the Committee recalls that requiring a decision by over half of the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike, particularly in large enterprises. In the Committee’s view, if a country deems it appropriate to require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 147). Therefore, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with social partners, to take the necessary measures to review section 41(1) of the TULRAA in line with the principles stated above and to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

Civil liability and penal sanctions. The Committee notes that section 3 of the TULRAA provides that the employer who has suffered damages due to industrial action “under this Act” shall not claim damages against a trade union, and that section 4 provides that activities such as industrial actions conducted to achieve the purpose of TULRAA are considered justifiable from a criminal law perspective unless they involve violence or destruction. Nevertheless, the Committee notes the observation of the KCTU, stating that the effectiveness of section 3 is limited due to the strict interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate strike; the KCTU further states that employers have pursued compensation of damages in the billions to tens of billions of KRW against trade unions and workers for strikes and occupations to prevent layoffs, for factory occupations following workplace closures, and for strikes and occupations to demand regularization of illegal dispatches or to oppose the introduction of a performance-based salary system. The Committee notes that the KCTU states that an amendment of section 3 is pending before the National Assembly, which aims at limiting corporations’ ability to claim excessive damages from workers on strike, emphasizing the principle of individual liability and shielding guarantors from responsibility for damages arising from trade union activities. The Committee notes with interest that on 9 November 2023 the Korean National Assembly adopted the amendment to section 3 of the TULRAA. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court have clarified that there is an inherent limitation that only justifiable industrial actions arising out of Constitutional guarantee for collective action can be granted exemption. The Committee further notes that despite section 4 of the TULRAA, the penal provisions at the end of this Act provide penal sanctions for several types of strike action, regardless of their peaceful character, and that these sanctions include up to 5 years imprisonment with labour and fines amounting to KRW 50 million. The Committee further notes that in its examination of Case No. 1865, the CFA has been referring to the question of application of section 314(1) of the Penal Code, punishing the offence of “obstruction of business” to strike actions for 25 years. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it applies section 314 of the Penal Code with caution and in accordance with the limitations set out in the case-law of the Supreme Court, namely to cases where strikes occur suddenly at a time that could have not been predicted by an employer, causing significant confusion or tremendous damages to the business operation. The Government also indicates that since 2018, there have been no cases in which it has charged individuals with the offense of obstruction of business for simply refusing to perform labour. The Committee recalls that the legitimate exercise of the right to strike may not result in sanctions of any sort and that in particular, no penal sanctions should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right. Therefore, measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed on any account (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 122 and 158). The Committee expects that now that the Convention is integrated into the legal order of the Republic of Korea, the Government, in consultation with the social partners, will take all necessary measures to ensure that workers and their organizations are not subject to penal sanction for their engagement in peaceful industrial action and to provide information on the steps taken in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any cases in which workers and unions were held liable for the damages resulting from a strike or were sentenced to imprisonment for participation in a strike and to send copies of the relevant judicial decisions. The Committee finally requests the Government to send a copy of the amended text of section 3 of the TULRAA.