[asia-apec 141] KCTU-Labour Law Reform Campaign Update, Oct. 4.

[AMRC]

From: Korean Confederation of Trade Unions <kctu at chollian.dacom.co.kr>
Organization: Korean Confederation of Trade Unions

              KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Struggle for Labour Law Reforms
                           Campaign News VII

                    Labour Law Reform At A Dead End

A Show-Down At Hand

The 9th plenary session of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations
Reform, held on October 1, 1996, came to an end without any concrete progress.
The Commission is set to meet again on October 7, 1996 for what is expected
to be the last session in the current series of Commission meetings. In the
October 7th meeting, the Commission will finalise its recommendations for
amendment of the labour laws to report to the President. In this meeting, the
Commission will decide the method for finalising its recommendations.

There are three kinds of decision available to the Commission. One possible
decision that can be taken by the Commission is to continue with the discussion
until there is agreement on all pertinent issues regardless of the length of
time
required. The second avenue open for the Commission is to report all the items
as they currently stand, classifying the issues on which agreement has been
reached and those which remain without agreement. The third path involves
putting all the issues discussed to a ballot among the members to determine the
Commission's position by a majority.


The Drawn-Out Debate With No Results

The 9th plenary session of the Commission on October 1, dealt with 5 major
issues on which the drafting committee was not able to reach agreement. 
However, the Commission failed make any progress on the issues of the
"prohibition on third party intervention", "labour lease system", "union
membership
eligibility for dismissed workers", the scope of "compulsory arbitration",
and the
freedom of association for government employees and teachers.

Third Party Intervention. 
Employer representatives and some of the so-called "public interest
representatives"
continued to insist on the need to maintain the prohibition on third party 
intervention in some form. The proposal made by the so-called "public interest
representatives" at the drafting committee calls for amending the current clause
which states that

     "No person, except for the workers who have a direct employment
     relationship with the employer, the trade union concerned, the employer 
     or other persons duly authorized by other laws or regulations, shall
     manipulate, instigate, or obstruct the parties concerned regarding acts of
     dispute, nor intervene with the intent to influence them" (Labor Dispute
     Adjustment Act, Article 13-2)

The so-called "public interest representatives" in the drafting committee
proposed
an amendment which in effect would stipulate that:

     "No person, except for those who have a direct employment relationship, 
     shall manipulate, instigate, agitate illegal acts of dispute or intervene 
     or participate in them with the intent to influence them."

KCTU has repeatedly pointed out that the proposed "amendment" -- which
singles out "illegal acts of dispute" -- in effect, is no different from the
current
clause. Furthermore, the existing laws, even without the "prohibition on third
party intervention" can be called on to "punish" all persons -- even those who
have a "direct employment relationship" -- for engaging in "illegal" actions of
dispute. The proposed amendment, on the surface, appears "harmless" as no one 
would deliberately encourage or condone "illegal acts of dispute". However, this
ignores the existing "industrial relations" where the majority of collective
action by a trade union are "deemed" to be "illegal". For example, a form of
collective action -- an act of dispute -- such as "work to rule" measures by a
union, can be claimed by the employer to be "an interference with business"
under
the Criminal Code, making the whole industrial dispute "illegal" once a criminal
charge is filed with the authorities. 

KCTU asserts that the insistence on a clause prohibiting third party
intervention
in whatever form is a reflection of an intent to restrict labour and trade union
rights, a deliberate effort to incorporate hostile attitude to and distrust
of trade
union activities into the legislation. 

Labour Lease System.
The debate in the drafting committee and the Commission highlighted a need
for a more systematic study of the need -- if there is one -- for such an 
employment system, and how such a system may operate, and to what extent
it could by allowed. While there is no specific agreement, the Commission,
therefore, seems poised to recommend further study on the issue.

Union Membership Eligibility for Dismissed Workers. 
The current law allows dismissed workers to maintain their union membership
until
the highest court of the land -- brings down a decision on their litigation
challenging the validity of the dismissal. The proposal of the so-called "public
interest representatives", however, recommends to restrict the eligibility
to the time
of a decision by the Appeals Hearing at the Central Labour Relations
Commission. 

The "eligibility" has become a key issue for the trade unions -- which are all
enterprise-level unions -- because employers have frequently used dismissal to
attack unions and union leaders. The employer representatives are determined to
uphold this recommendation proposed by the "so-called" public interest
representatives. Their demands stems from their "fear" that "dismissed" workers
may exploit the system. KCTU, however, points out that it would require a very
special circumstances on the part of the "dismissed" workers to engage in a
drawn
out legal battle that usually lasts two to three years. KCTU asserts, therefore,
the employers' "fear" is unfounded and that it rather reflects employers'
wish to
maintain and strengthen their "weapon" against trade unions.

Compulsory Arbitration.
One of the achievements of the drafting committee is the scaling down of the 
scope of "public utility services" which are subject to 'compulsory
arbitration'.
'Compulsory arbitration' system serves to prevent strikes by subjecting the
deadlocked negotiation to mandatory arbitration which the parties involved
in the 
dispute must respect. The drafting committee made an agreement to reduce the
scope of "public utility services" to the "essential services". However,
there is a
continuing disagreement over the inclusion of banks and communication companies
 in the list of essential services. 

Freedom of Association for Government Employees and Teachers. 
The right and freedom of government employees and teachers is one of the central
issues of the labour law reforms. The Commission or the government-appointed
"public interest representatives" as a whole cannot be said to represent the
interest
or will of the government. KCTU, however, believes that this is one issue on
which the government's intentions are most deeply reflected. This issue, KCTU
believes, is the most critical test of government commitment to reform. 

The current position of the Commission on this issue reflects a categorical
denial
of freedom of association for government employees and teachers. The Commission
-- led by "public interest representatives" -- is prepared to grant government
employees and teachers a right to organise non-union association which does not
come under the labour laws but special laws to be enacted for this specific
purpose. Such an association, according to this proposal, cannot use the term
"union" or "trade union" in its name. Furthermore, it would not be able to
affiliate
with a national trade union centre such as KCTU. 

The Commission -- and the government -- asserts that such a proposal does 
grant "freedom of association". It may also point to National Education
Association and American Federation of Teachers in the U.S. and the teachers
association in Japan to justify its proposal. However AFT and the Japanese
teachers association are affiliated to the national trade union centres, and the
NEA's non-affiliation with AFL-CIO is a result of its own decision rather 
than any regulation or law. 

KCTU and the Korea Teachers and Education Workers Union assert that the
restrictions the Commission proposes are denial of the freedom of association. 
Freedom of association signifies a freedom and right on the part of the
constituent members to decide by themselves the form, character, and type of 
organisation and the name it may decide to use. But what the Commission --
and government -- is doing is specifying and dictating what is allowed and 
is not allowed, contrary to the spirit and principle of the freedom of
association.


The On-Going Deadlock -- The Non-Existent Deadlock

The prospect of labour law reform is under a cloud. Under the current
circumstances, the "dead-lock" between the various "interested" parties in the
Commission is presented as the root cause of this pessimistic prospect. The 
Korean government, in its numerous reports to the various international bodies
which have been calling for labour reforms, have repeatedly pointed to the
entrenched clash of interests for the lack of progress in the labour law
reforms.
The Commission presents yet another opportunity for the Korean government
to escape the responsibility of undertaking genuine reforms.

KCTU decided to take part in the Commission process knowing fully that the
Commission may, in the last instance, become the excuse and justification
for the
government for not undertaking a comprehensive labour law reforms. This decision
stems from KCTU's commitment to develop a pattern and practice of dialogue as
responsible partners in the building of a new industrial relationship. However,
KCTU cannot allow the government to point to a "deadlock" of interests as the
justification for failing to fulfill its responsibility. 

The Commission has for the last two to three weeks remained stagnant without
any progress. And it may in October 7th plenary session decide in what ever
form to finalise its position. KCTU is beginning to realise the futility of
engaging
in further debates when there is no clear signal of commitment from the
government. Furthermore, KCTU cannot in any way be a party to the 
Commission's final position which fails to bring about a fundamental reform
of the
labour law. While KCTU has concentrated, so far, on working through the
Commission, the moment of decision is close at hand for KCTU to declare the
Commission defunct and prepare and undertake a more concerted campaign
directed at the government itself.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Struggle for Labour Law Reforms
                             Campaign News VIII


                      Korean Government Misleads OECD

The Problem: The Government's Report to the OECD

On October 1, 1996, the Environment and Labour Committee of the National 
Assembly began an auditing of the work of the Ministry of Labour. In the process
the Committee questioned the Ministry of Labour for its recent report to the
OECD
prior to its September 26th Council meeting. The Assemblymen discovered that the
Government report, in the section concerning the "Public Officials and Teachers'
Rights of Organization", stated that 

     "the public members [of the Presidential Commission on 
     Industrial Relations Reform] suggest permitting teachers 
     the right to establish teachers' trade union and to bargain 
     collectively as well as establishing Mediation Service for 
     Teachers Labor Disputes. (At present, "Korean Teachers 
     Federation" as the only teachers' representative is in action).
     However, the labor has its standpoint to request full 
     guarantee of three labor rights or to accept restrictions on 
     collective activity as applied to public services."

The Assemblymen pointed out that what the report says is entirely different
from what the Commission or its drafting committee has presented or what
remains as the status of the issue in the Commission's discussions. The
Assemblymen questioned the Labour Minister if the intention of the report 
was to mislead the OECD members who had reservations about the 
Korean government's commitment to labour law reforms. The Assemblymen
pointed out that the report was made following the decision of the OECD Council
on September 12, 1996 to request the Employment, Labour, and Social Affairs
(ELSA) Committee to present a report on the progress in the labour law reforms.

Some in KCTU humourously aired a view that the Ministry of Labour may have
more forward looking view on the issue of teachers union than what the
Commission was prepared to allow. They suggested the Assemblymen should
have asked the Labour Minister if the Ministry was prepared, indeed, to
"permitting teachers the right to establish teachers' trade union".

Mr. Jin Nyeum, the Labour Minister, who returned around 11 p.m. to answer the 
Assemblymen's questions after checking with the Ministry staff, asserted
that the
"trade union" was a translation error, and that the government had in no way
attempted to mislead the OECD members. And the vice-minister for Labour 
stated that the term should have been "teachers corporation". He also stated
that the Ministry of Labour "officials would not have realised that the terms
involved, whether teachers union or teachers corporation, were such a
delicate and
important matter." 

Assemblymen refused to accept the explanation that it was a "translation error",
as only the elite university graduates who pass a very difficult state
examination
can join high level Ministry staff. Assemblymen asserted that the report was "a
product of the intention on the part of the government to remove the stumbling
block to Korea's accession to OECD due to the reservations of OECD Council." 


The Fiasco: Adds Fuel to Frustration and Suspicion

The "translation error" might indeed have been an "error". But the incident has
added fuel to the doubts about the prospects of the Commission's work and 
the suspicion about the government's intentions in establishing the Commission,
entrusting it -- and members who inevitably have divergent "interests" -- to set
the direction for government's legislative amendment. 

The incident has severely eroded general confidence in the government's 
commitment for labour law reforms. It has, as the Assemblymen have suggested,
raised suspicion that the Commission was a delaying tactic on the part of the
government to ameliorate the reservations held by some member states in OECD.

The incident also raised tension in the meeting of the Presidential
Commission on
Industrial Relations Reform. The chairman of the Commission was asked whether
the Commission and its secretariat had any involvement in producing and/or
presenting the report in question to the OECD. Former Prime Minister Hyun,
Soong Jong chairing the Commission explained that the Commission in noway
was involved in the presentation of the report.

KCTU believes the incident was very unfortunate and that it had done great
damage in building confidence in the government's commitment to labour law
reforms and in its relationship with the OECD. KCTU believes that the damage
can only be repaired by government's categorical and unconditional
acknowledgement -- before the Korean working people and the international
community -- of its commitment to fulfill its responsibility to bring about a
genuine reform of the labour laws.