The Committee’s decision to increase the limits is troubling, considering the purpose of the time-off system, which was introduced on July 1st, 2010 in order to minimize the negative influence of full-time union officers. In particular, workforce losses and labor cost increases in small and micro-businesses with less than 50 union members became inevitable, since companies now would be required to pay the wages of full-time union officers.
Considering the legislative intent of the time-off system, a gradual reduction of the time-off limit is required. In principle, trade union activities should be done outside regular working hours. However, union activities during regular working hours for items such as maintaining and administering a trade union, or for trade union activities to the common interest of both employer and employees are allowed. Despite the legislative intent and exceptions, the current time-off limit allows many more hours than is actually needed because labor has demanded this. In order to correct this, business made a proposal to increase the current 11 segments for time-off limits to 17 segments. To counter this, labor proposed 6 of the existing 11 segments with the aim of extending the time-off limit. The Time-off System Deliberation Committee accepted some of labor’s demands, and thus an additional 1,000 hours were given to workplaces with fewer than 50 union members and some workplaces located in a number of municipalities were also allocated additional hours.
|
Business (proposal)
|
Existing limits
|
FKTU (proposal)
|
|||
|
Membership
|
Hours
|
Membership
|
Hours
|
Membership
|
Hours
|
|
less than 50
|
Maximum 1,000
|
less than 50
|
Maximum 1,000
|
Less than 300
|
Minimum 2,000 Maximum 4,000
|
|
50∼99
|
Maximum 2,000
|
50∼99
|
Maximum 2,000
|
||
|
100∼199
|
Maximum 3,000
|
100∼199
|
Maximum 3,000
|
||
|
200∼299
|
Maximum 4,000
|
200∼299
|
Maximum 4,000
|
||
|
300~499
|
Maximum 5,000
|
300~499
|
Maximum 5,000
|
300~999
|
Maximum 6,000
|
|
500~999
|
Maximum 6,000
|
500~999
|
Maximum 6,000
|
||
|
1,000∼1,999
|
Maximum 8,000
|
1,000~2,999
|
Maximum 10,000
|
1,000~4,999
|
Maximum 14,000
|
|
2,000∼2,999
|
Maximum 10,000
|
||||
|
3,000~3,999
|
Maximum 12,000
|
3,000~4,999
|
Maximum 14,000
|
||
|
4,000~4,999
|
Maximum 14,000
|
||||
|
5,000∼5,999
|
Maximum 15,000
|
5,000~9,999
|
Maximum 22,000
|
5,000~9,999
|
Maximum 22,000
|
|
6,000~6,999
|
Maximum 16,000
|
||||
|
7,000~7,999
|
Maximum 17,000
|
||||
|
8,000∼8,999
|
Maximum 18,000
|
||||
|
9,000~9,999
|
Maximum 19,000
|
||||
|
10,000∼14,999
|
Maximum 22,000
|
10,000~14,999
|
Maximum 28,000
|
10,000~14,999
|
Maximum 28,000
|
|
15,000 or more
|
Maximum 28,000
|
15,000 or more
|
Maximum 36,000
|
15,000 or more
|
Maximum 36,000
|
As the Committee allowed one full-time union officer in a workplace or business with fewer than 50 members, issues related to the expansion of time-off hours will emerge in micro- or small businesses.
Nevertheless, companies should be aware that the decision of the Committee does not obligate the existence of one full-time union officer no matter what. The Committee expanded the time-off limit in consideration of the practice of some industries (such as taxi services) that had maintained one full-time union officer even before the introduction of the time-off system. When considering the purpose of the committee’s decision, companies do not need to expand their time-off limits if they do not have a prior full-time union officer or there is no major need for union activities during regular working hours.
For adjustment of time-off limits, companies need to require the trade union to provide specific information about the maintenance and administration of the trade union or trade union activities for the common interest of both employer and employees. If the time-off limit is set much higher than the actual hours necessary for such activities, companies should find ways to reduce the limit to an appropriate level.
Third, additional hours for workplaces distributed across multiple cities should be allowed only when union members have difficulty in communicating due to the distance.
The Time-off System Deliberation Committee allowed for additional time-off hours based on the number of municipalities in which businesses or workplaces are located. As a result, “Automobile Maker A” with 5 workplaces in different municipalities gets a maximum 10% in additional time-off hours (1.8 full-time union officers), and “Electronics Company B,” with 6 workplaces gets a maximum 20% in additional time-off hours (2.2 full-time union officers).
The Committee also gave additional hours to workplaces with 1,000 or more union members even where the fiscal capacity of the union is quite sound. Concerns are arising that the negative impact of the past from allowing too many full-time union officers could recur. In particular, it is problematic that the Committee decided to pass expenses for union activities on to the companies despite the fact that trade unions in large workplaces can secure the wages of full-time union officers through an increase in membership fees.
Regardless, the decision of the Committee should not be interpreted as forcing workplaces distributed across various cities to increase their time-off limits. The Committee realized the fact that distances between workplaces can incur commuting time and therefore the hours required for actual union activities could decrease. Therefore, if union activities can be done through other means of communication (telephone, video call, e-mail etc.) which do not have spatial constraints, companies are not required to give additional time-off hours. An increase of the time-off limit can be considered only for cases of activities for maintenance or administration of a trade union such as general assemblies, which by nature consume a considerable amount of time in commuting.
The decision of the Committee is a standard which will be applied in workplaces for the next 3 years. Therefore, companies are advised to allow trade unions use of time-off hours only for necessary activities, by making information requests about trade union activity plans and managing employee absenteeism and tardiness. If an existing time-off limit grants more hours than what is actually needed for applicable union activities, companies should gradually decrease the limit.
|
Additional time-off hours
|
||
|
Number of municipalities where workplaces are located
|
Time-off hours
|
|
|
For businesses or workplaces with 1,000 or more union members
|
2~5 cities
|
(Annual time-off limit for a business or workplace) x 10%
|
|
6~9 cities
|
(Annual time-off limit for a business or workplace) x 20%
|
|
|
10 or more cities
|
(Annual time-off limit for a business or workplace) x 30%
|
|