Jeollanam-do Faces Backlash Over Summer Vacation Ban for Newly Hired Building Management Contract Workers

Vacation Denied for Five Contracted Building Management Staff
Official Notice Delivered via Group Chat
Controversy Over Fairness as Previous Contract Employees Received Vacation
Jeollanam-do: "Applies Only to Those Converted from Public Service to Contract Status"
Criticism Grows Over "Blatant Hierarchy" and Calls for Policy Reform

Jeonnam Provincial Government Office Building Exterior

Jeollanam-do Province is facing controversy after deciding not to grant summer (seasonal) vacation to newly contracted temporary (fixed-term) employees responsible for provincial government building management (including cleaning) this year.

The main reason behind this decision is that these fixed-term employees are not classified as 'public service workers.' Regardless of the regulations, this decision leaves a bitter aftertaste, as it effectively denies even a brief, once-a-year break to some of the most powerless and marginalized workers in the provincial government office.

On July 28, Jeollanam-do posted an official notice titled 'Guidelines on Work Attendance for Fixed-Term Employees' in a group chat for temporary staff at the provincial government office.

The notice explicitly stated, "The collective agreement (summer vacation) currently applied to public service workers is only effective for those classified as public service workers under the agreement and does not apply to fixed-term employees."

This notice was delivered specifically to the building management fixed-term employees-five in total, with four hired around January and one in July-out of approximately 500 temporary employees at the provincial government office.

Public service workers are regular, non-civil servant employees affiliated with the state, local governments, or public enterprises, and are protected under the Labor Standards Act. In contrast, fixed-term employees are also hired through contracts and perform nearly identical tasks and roles, but there are status-based differences in wages and general benefits provided during employment.

Through this notice, Jeollanam-do has reaffirmed these distinctions.

The issue has escalated into a fairness controversy because the decision to deny summer vacation applies only to those fixed-term employees hired this year.

It has been confirmed that other fixed-term employees performing the same duties, who started before this group, have been granted five days of summer vacation every year.

These employees previously worked as public service workers but were converted to contract status due to reaching the retirement age limit. Legally, they share the same status as those now denied summer vacation.

This has sparked internal conflict, with fundamental questions such as, "Why can some go on vacation while others cannot?" fueling the spread of the summer vacation denial controversy.

As backlash intensified, union officials representing public service workers reportedly made several requests to higher management for improvements to the policy.

Recently, Jeollanam-do reportedly proposed a new recommendation: employees could either take vacation days from the five-day special leave (granted at the governor's discretion for emergencies such as extreme heat) or use a few days from their allotted annual leave for vacation.

However, since those hired this year receive very few annual leave days based on their length of service, this proposal is effectively perceived as a message not to take summer vacation at all.

Amid record-breaking heatwaves, the affected fixed-term employees, who work hard to keep the government building clean, are unable to hide their dismay. Despite working in the lowest positions within the provincial government office, they feel deeply disappointed at not being recognized for their basic rights as formally contracted workers.

Vice Governor for Economic Affairs Kang Wiwon met with cleaning staff as his first official internal engagement about a week after taking office on June 17, offering words of encouragement and support. Yet, less than two months later, the situation has become awkward.

There is growing criticism of Jeollanam-do for its contradictory and inconsistent decisions. Many point out that, despite performing virtually the same work in terms of duties, assignments, and workload as public service workers, the denial of summer vacation for fixed-term employees only serves to reinforce a hierarchy between contract and public service staff.

One contract employee lamented, "Whether you're a public service worker or a contract worker, cleaning is the same job, but at some point, the tougher cleaning areas became the responsibility of contract workers. Some people go outside and relax during work hours, while only contract workers are left to do all the work. Yet, we can't even freely take summer vacation. This is discrimination. The regulations need to be changed."

In response, Jeollanam-do officials have stated that the facts are somewhat different.

A Jeollanam-do official explained, "We simply conveyed the relevant work attendance regulations, such as those from the Civil Servants Act, to the concerned employees. Generally, most workers adjust their annual leave for summer vacation. Unlike public service workers, fixed-term employees cannot be granted summer vacation under the current regulations. However, we believe they can freely schedule vacation time using special leave or annual leave."

The official further clarified, "In 2019, during the process of signing a labor agreement with public service workers, it was agreed that when a public service worker retires after turning 60, they would be converted to contract status for five years, and would continue to follow the same work attendance regulations as before. Currently, about 10 fixed-term employees have been converted from public service status, and because they are granted summer vacation, misunderstandings have arisen."

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