In Korea, politics has a huge impact on the industrial relations. Government policies and legislations regarding industrial relations directly affect labor relations and working conditions at workplace-level. Since labor recognizes that their demands are difficult to be met with disputes in the workplace, they are trying to be involved in politics, to increase their influence on national policies and to accomplish their demands through legislations. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) has been continuing its vigorous political activities ever since it established the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) in 2001 and seated 10 members to the 17th National Assembly and 6 members to the 18th National Assembly. The Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) reinforced its political stance through a policy coalition with the Grand National Party in 2007 and seated 4 members to the 18th National Assembly.
The political activities of labor groups are expected to rise to a peak in 2012. Since the general and presidential elections are scheduled in the same year, political activities by labor are gaining momentum from the populist pledges of pro-labor politicians. Diverging from its traditional policy coalition with the Grand National Party, the FKTU has actively prepared and participated in the unification of the opposition parties. The FKTU is planning to become a mainstream of the opposition party by bringing in many of their own candidates to the National Assembly in the upcoming general elections, and using their influence in the Democratic United Party (DUP). With its power in the Unified Progressive Party (UPP), the KCTU is also planning to win 20 or more seats in the National Assembly and become a floor negotiating group there. Considering this situation, more active election campaigns by trade unions in individual companies with corresponding difficulties in HRM are expected. Thus companies need to take a closer look at possible issues from the election campaigns of these trade unions and seek effective ways to counter these actions.
Excessive demands related to the elections from trade unions should not be accepted
Mr. Kim, the president of Company A, had troubles from the political activities of the trade union in his company during the last local election. A union official B asked for the company’s support in the upcoming election. B also mentioned that it would be also good for the company if B were elected to the city council. Mr. Kim did not expect B to be elected, but he accepted the demands from the trade union for fear of creating conflict.
Mr. Kim provided a place for assemblies and broadcasting facilities for the election campaigns, and allowed posting of campaign posters and banners inside the workplace. B and his fellow union members were allowed to spend their working hours on their election campaign. However, productivity in the workplace suffered. The factory was operated by a handful of workers since the trade union frequently recruited a considerable number of union members for their election campaigns and requested hours for political education targeting every union member. Some workers were distracted and could not concentrate on their job due to the campaign, so that the factory could not meet its production target. A worker with different political views than that of the trade union even had a scuffle with a union member which created complete chaos in the factory. B failed to win votes and lost the election in the end, but is now trying to run for a member of the National Assembly. Mr. Kim is concerned as to how he should deal with the political activities of the trade union prior to the general and presidential elections in 2012.
The biggest mistake that Mr. Kim made was that for fear of immediate conflict, he responded to the demands of the trade union without any consideration of the repercussions. Companies are not obligated to support trade union election campaigns even if union officials run for election. Therefore, Mr. Kim should not have given an approval for the trade union to engage in election activities during working hours, even though the union demanded that it support the candidate.
Of course the candidate for a public office election can campaign outside of the workplace even during work hours, under Article 10 (Guarantee of Exercise of Civil Rights) of the Labor Standards Act. Nevertheless, the company should not have paid him for those campaign hours since he is not excused from his duties under the labor contract.
What if the candidate is a full-time union official? Should the company pay his wage? The answer is “No”. According to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA), an election campaign is not considered one of the union activities to which the paid time-off system is applied.
In addition to this, election campaigns in the workplace should not be allowed even after work hours. Possible discrimination issues can ensue if multiple candidates in the same workplace run for election and only some candidates are allowed to campaign there.
Companies should not give in to trade union demands for places and facilities to be used for the purpose of election campaigns. Even if the collective agreement between a company and the trade union stipulates ‘facilities etc. may be used with the approval of the company,’ the facilities provided are for general union activities, not for personal situations such as election campaigns. Moreover, distributing hand-outs and the placing of posters should not be readily permitted.
Campaign hand-outs and posters can cloud the atmosphere in a workplace and hinder operations, as was the case for Mr. Kim’s company. More importantly, placing posters in an open space to support a particular candidate under the name of a specific trade union is against election law. Because of this, companies should firmly dissuade trade unions from putting election posters in the workplace on the assumed authority of the employer’s right to manage his or her facilities.
Illegal strikes should be dealt with in accordance with law and principle
Even if companies have already dealt with issues regarding the general elections in April 2012, they still should prepare a measure for the KCTU’s general strike prior to the presidential election in December 2012. The KCTU is planning to push ahead with its first general strike at the end of June or the beginning of July, in order to reinforce their position that the union demands should be dealt with from the opening session of the National Assembly. The KCTU will bring another general strike at the end of August for revision of the TULRAA in a provisional session of the National Assembly. These general strikes are illegal since they are designed to accomplish the political goals of the unions, which are irrelevant to working conditions.
Through the use of an official document or a labor guide, companies should indicate their stance that they will not approve trade union participation in the general strikes. If unions ignore this and participate anyway, companies can bring criminal charges against those trade unions and seek redress in civil action, based on damages and illegal actions which occurred during the periods of unrest.
Workers’ rights to vote and carry on proper political activities should be guaranteed. Nevertheless, illegal election campaigns in workplaces for the political profit of labor groups can severely damage company management. Companies should keep this in mind and take extra care of their labor management during election times.