Even When Unions Harass or Initiate Strikes... Arbitration Blocked by the Labor Union Act

Need for Institutional Improvement on Abnormal Strikes
Current Law Prohibits Third-Party Intervention in Labor-Management Issues
No Proper Regulation When Labor or Management Uses Threats

Expert: "No One Can Intervene Is a Restrictive and Limited Interpretation
Government Should Actively Step In When Exceptions Occur"

On the 1st, a portrait was placed at the memorial altar of Mr. A, a delivery agency owner in his 40s, set up at a courier company terminal in Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do. Mr. A left a suicide note blaming the labor union and took his own life on the 30th of last month. (Image source=Yonhap News)

[Sejong=Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] Finding a solution to labor-management conflicts is becoming increasingly difficult. Labor-management negotiations are inherently hard to resolve easily, and recently, as seen in cases involving the delivery workers' union and franchise owners, conflicts have intensified due to unilateral pressure from one side. Under current law, resolving disputes through normal union procedures prioritizes settlement between the parties involved, but voices advocating for mediation in cases of abnormal conflicts caused by one-sided pressure are gaining traction.

Under current law, third-party intervention in labor disputes is impossible. The "Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Labor Union Act)," which governs labor disputes, only contains provisions regarding whether a dispute exists, but does not provide solutions through mediation. Not only must specific entities outside the labor relations parties be prevented from intervening in disputes for political purposes, but if the government intervenes, its judgment could be arbitrarily exploited in labor disputes across various sectors, so third-party intervention is effectively prohibited. However, if a dispute arises and conflicts escalate, mediation is possible upon request to the Central or local Labor Relations Commissions.

However, experts argue that institutional measures allowing mediation in cases of abnormal disputes are necessary. Especially after a franchise owner took their own life following ridicule by the delivery workers' union, calls for mediation have grown louder.

On the 3rd, Park Jisoon, Dean of the Graduate School of Labor Studies at Korea University, said in a phone interview with Asia Economy, "(In this case) there is no provision in the Labor Union Act to regulate the delivery workers' union, so whether to create and apply a new law has become a subject of controversy." He pointed out, "It is a constitutional fundamental right that no one should interfere when a union legally demands negotiations and engages in disputes to fulfill its original role, but if they engage in deviant acts beyond that scope, the government must strictly enforce the law, or such acts will repeatedly occur."

Experts focus on Article 2 of the Labor Union Act. The article states that the authority for labor dispute activities lies with "the union and the employer or employer organization," and allows for dispute actions when there is no possibility of agreement through negotiation due to disagreements between the parties. However, there are no exceptions or provisions for "abnormal dispute actions."

An anonymous labor law expert said, "Interpreting Article 2 of the Labor Union Act too narrowly to mean that no one outside the parties?employers, workers, or union members?can intervene in labor relations is too restrictive and limited," adding, "In socially urgent cases, the government needs to actively mediate as an exception."

The government remains lukewarm. A Ministry of Employment and Labor official explained, "We first provide on-site guidance and mediation for conflicts between individual labor and management parties, and thoroughly investigate violations of the Labor Union Act to take appropriate measures."

According to the Ministry's explanation, it is sufficient to detect and regulate violations of the Labor Union Act, but in cases like Mr. Lee's, where the union threatens the management side, there are no appropriate provisions in the Labor Union Act to regulate this. Practically, for the government to intervene legally through mediation by the Labor Relations Commission, the process of "labor-management members' approval vote → majority approval of dispute action (strike) → application for labor dispute mediation to the local Labor Relations Commission" must be completed. According to Article 45 of the Labor Union Act, the "prior mediation-post dispute" principle, known as "mediation precondition," must be adopted. In other words, unless the union, as the perpetrator, internally decides whether to engage in dispute actions, the government has no legal grounds to intervene.

However, considering that no country in the world has a prohibition on intervention, and that South Korea uniquely had such a prohibition during the Chun Doo-hwan administration in the 1980s but completely abolished it in 2006, there is a consensus that appropriate government measures for "abnormal dispute actions" are somewhat necessary. Especially recently, with the rapid strengthening of labor's authority in case law and legislative trends, opinions are emerging that the government should actively mediate disputes in cases causing social disturbances.

Also, considering the growing labor-management conflicts, discussions on legal amendments seem inevitable. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the number of labor disputes per year was 101 in 2017, 134 in 2018, 141 in 2019, and 105 last year, showing no significant decrease. Regarding "lost workdays," which indicate the time during which proper work could not be performed due to dispute actions, the number decreased from 860,000 days in 2017 to 550,000 days in 2018, then to 400,000 days in 2019, but rose again to 550,000 days last year.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.