Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Republic of Korea (Ratification: 1992)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

A Government representative indicated that since the ratification of the Convention, the Government had made utmost efforts to ensure that the Republic of Korea's labour inspection was in line with the principles and provisions of this Convention. Noting that Korean workers' and employers' organizations had submitted some comments on the application of the Convention, he wished to explain several issues on the current status and future plans of labour inspection systems in the Republic of Korea. The Korea Employers' Federation (KEF) had commented in relation to Article 3 of the Convention, that training programmes for labour inspectors should be reinforced and specified, and that this should be stipulated in a legal provision. With regard to Article 5, the KEF had contended that the Government should present information on its efforts to have consultations with employers' and workers' organizations. The Committee of Experts had requested that relevant information be provided on the Industrial Safety and Health Policy Deliberation Committee (ISHPDC). The Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), with regard to Article 8, had asked for information on the measures taken to increase the proportion of female labour inspectors, in view of the significant increase in the number of female workers.

Concerning the need to strengthen labour inspector training programmes and to stipulate them in a legal provision, he pointed out that the Government was operating various educational and training programmes to enhance labour inspectors' capacity to perform their duty. In 2003 the Government ran two basic training courses for 73 newly recruited labour inspectors and nine advanced training courses for 307 labour inspectors. In addition, in order to provide technical assistance and information, the Government had offered three separate on-line courses. Both the basic and advanced training courses contained 10 specialized subjects such as dispute mediation, counselling, investigation skills and labour laws. They provided training to more than 400 labour inspectors with a total of 280 hours of training. In addition, the Government constantly published training materials on revised legislation such as working hours reduction, labour standards and employment security. In 2004, the Ministry of Labour had provided special workshops on working hours reduction to more than 960 labour inspectors at the local labour administration. Regarding the question raised by KEF in respect of Article 5 about appropriate arrangements to promote collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and workers and employers or their organizations and by the Committee of Experts on the functioning of the ISHPDC, he indicated that the latter was being operated by the Government in order to collect information from workers' and employers' organizations on major industrial safety and health policies and to strengthen cooperation among tripartite members. For the efficient running of the ISHPDC, the meetings were often replaced by consultations of the committee members in written form. In 2003, there were two such information gatherings in March and September to deliberate on the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The Government had also taken measures to collect information from workers' and employers' organizations, including tripartite discussions on industrial safety and health. At the regional level, directors of regional labour offices collected opinions from workers' and employers' organizations. The Government was preparing measures to facilitate the operation of the ISHPDC and to increase its functions. Implementation of the measure was expected to facilitate discussions among workers, employers and the Government.

Lastly, the speaker addressed the question raised by FKTU on the increase of female labour inspectors and the request for information by the Experts' Committee. As the number of female workers increased the Government was working hard to recruit more female labour inspectors to handle and respond to the rising issues of maternity protection and sexual harassment. As a result of such efforts, the proportion of female labour inspectors had continually risen annually from 12 per cent in 2001, 14.6 per cent in 2002 to 14.9 per cent in 2003. He expected that this rising trend would continue in the future. In May 2004, 140 labour inspectors were added in order to deal with rising labour issues. As of February 2004, the ratio of female public officials with grades 7 and 8 who mainly carried out the role of labour inspectors stood at 40.3 per cent and 37 per cent respectively. Given this, the ratio of female labour inspectors was expected to increase further. Considering that 70.2 per cent of grade 9 public officials were women, the proportion of female labour inspectors was forecast to rise more rapidly. The Government was also encouraging female public officials to apply for labour inspector posts.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea observed that, as noted by the Committee of Experts and acknowledged by the Government, one of the major functions of labour inspection was to provide advice to workers. This included advice and information on unjust labour practices on the part of employers or middle management. One of the main aims of the labour inspection system was to prevent violations of basic labour rights by inspecting and offering assistance before accidents or violations occurred. However, in order for this to become possible, a sufficient number of labour inspectors were required to carry out inspections and give technical assistance. In the Republic of Korea, there was a significant shortage of labour inspectors, leading to a situation where one labour inspector was often responsible for several hundred workplaces. This resulted not only in one of the original purposes of the institution - preventing unjust labour practices - being rendered largely obsolete, but also meant that labour inspectors did not always receive proper training or education in the courses mentioned by the Committee of Experts. For this reason, he requested that the Committee of Experts further examined, and the Government provided information on the number of workplaces that were allotted to individual labour inspectors on a comparative basis, both domestically between regions/industries, and internationally. The great disparity in the workload of labour inspectors in the Republic of Korea also seemed to reflect a lack of effective follow-up measures and evaluation systems, an area in which the active participation of workers could potentially play a role in improving the labour inspection system.

Another point was that, despite the fact that the labour inspectors needed to remain completely impartial in their work, there had been instances where they had shown a propensity to bias towards certain parties. Complaints had been received by FKTU from migrant workers who had filed complaints to labour inspectors about unpaid wages at their workplace, only to be threatened with being reported to the Immigration Bureau as being undocumented. Needless to say, the problem of unpaid wages had gone unresolved despite the complaint being filed. The Special Labour Inspection system had been put into effect to make up for these shortcomings. However, the non-binding nature of ordinances by the labour inspectors had limitations in correcting labour practices in violation of relevant labour laws, as illustrated by the suicide of two workers through self-immolation in protest at unjust labour practices. This suggested that the strengthening of procedures for the enforcement of penalties against employers in violation of labour laws needed to be seriously considered. Labour inspectors should be required to have a certain amount of direct experience in labour and industrial relations, and the participation of workers should be guaranteed in the operation and running of the system in order to overcome such deficiencies. Regarding the observation of KEF concerning the ISHPDC, he pointed out that the evaluation and provision of information on this issue might need to be reconsidered in the light of the fact that new preparatory talks were ongoing in the Republic of Korea about a new tripartite framework that included all relevant trade unions. He finally noted that a certain amount of progress had been made regarding the number of women inspectors, and expressed the hope that the Government would provide information on progress made in this area.

The Worker members welcomed the information provided by the Government. The Convention was a key element in protecting workers' rights. Without a well-structured and independent labour inspectorate, the rights of workers were likely to remain meaningless. For the Worker members, the objectives of labour inspection were not simply to give advice to employers and workers, but to ensure that legislation and regulations were adhered to in practice. In the Republic of Korea, women workers represented 41 per cent of the working population. However, in 2000, there were only 59 female inspectors out of a total of 711. The Government had noted that an increase of 8.3 per cent was implemented between 1999 and 2001. The Worker members were encouraged by this trend but requested that this issue remained under the review of the Committee of Experts and that the Government sent statistics to the Committee. They requested information on whether the total number of labour inspectors was sufficient to carry out the mission, given the number of enterprises, the number of workers and the various areas of activity, and the complexity of the applicable provisions, as well as the means at its disposal. Furthermore, the Worker members hoped to be informed of how labour inspections functioned in the informal sector and, finally, how the Government ensured the continued training of labour inspectors.

The Employer members recalled that the full application of the Convention was crucial for a functioning labour inspection system as an effective means to enforce labour legislation. They emphasized that information and advice for workers and employers was of importance in this regard. Such activities could prevent non-compliance with national legislation. They noted the information provided by the Government with regard to promoting collaboration between labour inspection services and workers' and employers' organizations, as well as with regard to the increase of the number of female labour inspectors. The Government should provide this information in its next report, as well as written detailed replies to the other points raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of Japan emphasized the importance of labour inspection. Implementing labour inspection was a difficult task and as the Committee of Experts had pointed out in its report, it was necessary to ensure sufficient human resources with professional capability, not only quantitively but also qualitatively, in order to exercise labour inspection effectively. He said that many governments had adopted a "small government" ideology, which led to personnel reduction in public services, especially in the field of labour administration. The Republic of Korea was no exception and the resulting impact in a country where women workers accounted for some 41 per cent of the total labour force and where many industrial disputes were the result of unfair practices, was severe. As the Committee of Experts had pointed out, four measures, based on tripartite consultation with concrete provisions, were required in order to implement effective labour inspection: ensuring a sufficient number of inspectors; increasing the number of female inspectors; providing for qualitative skills training; and improving terms of employment for the inspectors. He strongly urged the Government to take measures to improve the situation immediately.

Another Worker member of the Republic of Korea wished to comment mainly on the issue of the number of women labour inspectors, while noting every effort and progress made by the Korean Government in this respect. The Republic of Korea had seen a steady increase of women workers in its labour market, which had resulted in an increase of various cases of women victims of unfair practices at the workplace, such as sexual harassment, gender discrimination, infringement of maternity protection legislation and others. Given their nature and characteristics, there was a need for more training on gender-related issues and debates among male and female labour inspectors. He requested the Government to make more efforts to ensure an adequate number of women labour inspectors as soon as possible. As to the argument that the post of labour inspector was not preferred by women officials within the Government, not only because of the difficult nature of the job but also because of the terms and conditions of work of labour inspectors, he urged the Government to come up with proper measures in this area in order to render the position of labour inspector more attractive. Finally, he expressed the hope that the Government would use this opportunity to review and develop the whole labour inspection system and make it more effective, and suggested that the matter might be discussed within the National Tripartite Commission.

The Government representative indicated that new measures were planned to enhance the availability of information and advice to workers and employers, such as the establishment of a counselling call centre. With regard to tripartite cooperation, the Government was working to set up tripartite labour inspection committees. These would be a forum for dialogue charged with developing training materials and sharing best practices. Finally, the Government would also continue to increase the number of female labour inspectors, including through improving the terms and conditions of labour inspectors.

The Worker members were satisfied with the constructive attitude of the Government. They recalled that the Convention was essential for guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers. The discussion had covered numerous points: the determination of whether the work carried out by the Labour Inspectorate fully complied with the principles of the Convention; the continuous training of labour inspectors; the proportion of women in the Labour Inspectorate as compared to the proportion of women workers in the national workforce; and the total number of employees in the Labour Inspectorate. The Worker members requested the Government to provide statistics to the Committee of Experts in order to review the situation.

The Employer members stated that there was no basis for concluding that there were major deficiencies in the Korean labour inspection system. The Government was working to improve the provision of information and advice to workers and employers. It also strengthened tripartite cooperation on labour inspection and made efforts to achieve a greater gender balance among labour inspectors. The Committee should request the Government to provide in its next report to the Committee of Experts the information on the points raised.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee underlined the fundamental importance of this Convention. The Committee took note of the labour inspectors' capacity-building programmes and expressed the hope that the Government would continue to make efforts to guarantee the training of labour inspectors in order to provide them with the means to address in the best way the requests of employers' and workers' organizations for technical information and advice. It underlined that the number of inspectors and the means at their disposal should be sufficient so that the inspectors could carry out their functions of advice as well as control, which was an essential function. With regard to the cooperation between employers and workers, the Committee took note of the information provided by the Government on tripartite dialogue on this subject and urged it to enhance it. Taking into account the constant increase of women at work, the Committee invited the Government to further reinforce the female composition of the labour inspectorate, so that inspection services could adequately address certain questions which specifically related to the conditions of work of women. The Committee requested the Government to send to the Committee of Experts complete and documented information as well as statistics on each of the questions raised.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the response of the Government.

Article 3 of the Convention. Primary functions of labour inspectors. 1. Supervision of trade union activities. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, theGovernment indicates that the Ministry of Employment and Labour (MOEL) has taken efforts to guarantee the freedom of union activities and workers’ right to organize. The Government indicates that labour inspectors do not interfere in the internal affairs of union and with these organizations’ legitimate activities.

The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU according to which some of the administrative regulations regarding trade union activities are repealed by the current government. However, more than two-thirds of the prohibitions which are subject to criminal or administrative punishments, as provided for by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA), are applicable to trade unions and workers. Moreover, procedural issues and industrial actions are strictly regulated by the TULRAA. The KCTU states that according to the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors, labour inspectors are tasked to supervise the application of the TULRAA and therefore are called on to inspect trade union activities. The KCTU indicates that the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors have not been revised after the amendment of the TULRAA and after the ratification in 2021 of the ILO Fundamental Conventions on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In its reply, the Government indicates that the TULRAA primarily regulates employers’ unfair labour practices such as imposing unfair treatment on the organization or operation of a trade union, and refusal or delay in the execution of a collective agreement. The Government also indicates that statistics on cases clearly show that the penalty provisions under the TULRAA regulate employers not the unions. Out of more than 46,000 cases brought by labour inspectors in 2020, only one case concerned industrial acts by a union, whereas in more than 200 cases employers were charged with unfair labour practices against a union.The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the supervision of the TULRAA by labour inspectors. It also requests once again that the Government provide information on the specific measures taken to ensure that supervision of trade union activities is carried out in relation to the protection of the rights of trade unions and their members, but does not take the form of acts of interference in their legitimate activities and internal affairs.

2. Dispute resolution. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that labour inspectors immediately initiate investigations upon receiving complaints and issue correction orders once non-compliance is found. The Government also states, however, that when a worker autonomously settles with the employer and revokes the case, the labour inspector shall confirm the explicit will of the worker concerned. The Government indicates that, in accordance with section 109(2) of the Labour Standards Act, a public prosecution regarding the violation of payment of wages may not be raised against the clearly expressed will of the complainant. The Committee also notes the KCTU comments alleging delays in taking legal proceedings against employers regarding unfair labour practices, and the Government’s reply that a worker or labour union whose rights are violated due to unfair labour practices can apply for remedy to the Labour Rights Commission and can also request criminal punishment for the employer’s unfair labour practices or its non-compliance with an order of remedy. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the number of cases settled by voluntary conciliation between the concerned worker and employer, indicating the type or content of complaints involved. The Committee also requests once again the Government to provide information on the time and resources of the labour inspectorate spent on the settlement of disputes in relation to their primary duties as provided for in Article 3(1). Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how often workers or labour unions request criminal punishment and how often such punishment has been granted, including the nature of such punishments (fine, imprisonment, or both).

Articles 3(1) and 17. Activities of the labour inspectorate in the area of non-discrimination and prompt legal proceedings. In reply to the previous Committee’s comment, the Government indicates that labour inspectors particularly responsible for corrective action against discrimination are designated under each Regional Office. The Equal Treatment Team, composed of an inspector of Grade 6 and seven inspectors of Grade 7, are organized under the Regional Labour Division of Regional Offices, focusing on occasional inspections in the area of equality and non-discrimination. The Team carries out relevant inspections, issues correction orders and addresses cases to the Labour Relations Commission and court as necessary. It is also mandatory to include discrimination against temporary agency workers in the checklist of any regular inspection on illegal labour dispatch. The Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s information, which addresses its previous request.

Articles 5(a) and 7. Effective cooperation and adequate training. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comment, the Government indicates that the MOEL has adjusted the internal administrative interpretations to correspond with the Supreme Court precedents. The Government also states that courses on legal interpretation of the Supreme Court precedents and case judgments relevant to labour relation laws are included in education programmes for labour inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the training given to labour inspectors regarding correspondence with Supreme Court precedents, and to indicate whether internal administrative interpretations continue to be reviewed for their adherence to decisions of the judicial system.

Articles 5(a) and 17. Cooperation with other government services and judicial proceedings. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information concerning the outcome of the judicial proceedings for the cases referred following labour inspection. The Government indicates that cases related to law violations are subjected to correction orders or fines, or are referred to judicial proceedings following labour inspection procedures. According to the Government’s information, there were respectively 677 and 534 cases referred to judicial proceedings in 2019 and 2020 following labour inspection visits, mostly concerning violations of the Labour Standards Act. The Committee further notes that there are 3,129 cases and 4,278 cases subject to judicial actions relating to OSH violations, respectively in 2018 and 2019. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of cases referred to judicial proceedings. It once again requests the Government to provideinformation on the outcome of the judicial proceedings for the cases referred following labour inspections, including the nature and amount of sanctions awarded and collected.

Article 5(b). Collaboration of the labour inspection with employers and workers and their organizations. The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the KCTU, despite the requirement of the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors, there are cases where the participation of workers’ representatives in inspection activities are not ensured. In addition, the participation of workers in the investigation of accidents is not required by law. As a result, in practice, most enterprises exclude workers’ participation in the investigation of serious accidents. In this regard, the KCTU notes that the Labour Administration Reform Committee recommended the revision of the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors in 2017 without success.

In response to the observations of the KCTU, the Government refers to section 14(5) and (11) of the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors, which provides that inspectors shall communicate relevant information to workers’ representative, including purpose and intent of the inspection, inspection results, future plans and improvement measures. It also refers to section 27 of the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors, stating that workers’ participation in the investigation of accidents is ensured through the statement of concerned workers as accident witness. Noting a possible difference between receiving statements from witnesses to an accident and conducting an ongoing dialogue with workers’ representatives as part of the investigation of such an accident, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to promote collaboration between the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations, including collaboration when investigating accidents.

Articles 6 and 15(a) and (c). Independence, professional integrity of labour inspectors, and their duty of confidentiality. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comment, the Government indicates that the Code of Conduct for MOEL officials regulates obligations such as declaration of private interests, prevention of influence peddling, prohibition of intercession and solicitation, and prohibition of receipt of money or other valuables. The Government also states that it contracts out the anonymous report system to a private agency in order to enhance the accessibility of illegal acts reporting, and that strict sanctions, including disciplinary actions and penalties as necessary, are imposed against identified violations. It further indicates that illegal acts subject to such sanctions include corruption and bribery, as well as direct engagement in related business during active service and after retirement. In addition, the Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government regarding the application of section 104 of the Labour Standards Act and section 81(1)-(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, which prohibit dismissal or other unfair treatment for reporting violations to labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the FKTU, from January to March 2021, 72 cases were reported in relation to the abuse of power of labour inspectors, such as unfair treatment of cases in favour of employers, requesting workers to withdraw the cases or arranging settlement and engaging in stalling tactics. The FKTU also refers to improper acts of labour inspectors in harassment cases, which may lead to secondary damage. It also states that training and education for labour inspectors need to be strengthened accordingly. In response to this observation, the Government indicates that measures have been taken to strengthen the training for labour inspectors, including courses for handling complaints, workplace harassment and unfair labour practices. It also refers to extended period of training and courses separately designed for inspectors of different levels. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted in order to ensure that labour inspectors do not have any conflict of interest, whether direct or indirect, in the workplaces under their supervision. It also requests the Government to indicate the number of cases of violations of the Code of Conduct of MOEL officials by labour inspectors and the penalties and/or disciplinary actions applied.

Article 13. Powers of inspectors in the area of OSH. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment on the enforcement of legal provisions relating to the protection of workers engaged in multi-level subcontracting structures, the Government indicates that a wide range of provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act were amended, and enforced on 16 January 2020, to enhance the accountability of a principal contractor, limit contracting for harmful works, and strengthen punishment of a business owner. The amendment focuses on expanding the scope of responsibilities of a contractee, enhancing the accountability of a person placing an order for construction works and a contractee, and extending the scope of workers under the protection of the Act. With regard to the shipbuilding industry, the Government indicates that the OSH Act introduced the evaluation of safety and health management level and utilized the results in improving the management to prevent industrial accidents. The Government additionally refers to the 2021 amendment of sentencing guidelines for violations of the OSH Act and the enactment of the Punishment of Serious Industrial Accident Act. The Government states that the sentencing guidelines are still in the early stage of enforcement, and it is thus too early to determine their effectiveness.

With regard to suspension measures, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that they may be ordered in case of a continuing dangerous situation followed by non-compliance with corrective orders, non-implementation of the Hazard Prevention Plan or serious accidents. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the number of suspension orders issued following an inspection visit and those issued following an accident investigation.

Concerning these figures, the Committee notes the KCTU’s indication in its observations that suspension orders issued during inspection visits decreased from 1,029 in 2018 to 59 in 2020, while suspensions orders issued following accident investigation decreased from 645 to 595. The KCTU also refers to some cases where suspension orders were not issued in time when labour inspectors relied on the oral statement of concerned employers during the investigation of accidents. In response to the KCTU’s observation, the Government indicates that the decrease in the number of suspension orders is attributable to the new OSH Act adopted in January 2020, which provides for more strict requirements for suspension orders, including the occurrence of serious industrial accidents and non-compliance with corrective orders. The Government states that there was an overuse of suspension orders due to arbitrary interpretation of events of “imminent danger”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the activities undertaken by labour inspectors to ensure compliance with the new provisions of the OSH Act in relation to subcontracting. It also requests the Government to provide further information on the requirements for the issuing of suspension orders by labour inspections as provided for in the 2020 OSH Act. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of measures taken, including the number of industrial accidents reported, instances where the occurrence of industrial accidents was concealed, violations detected, the judicial actions undertaken, and the penalties imposed and collected, where possible disaggregated by the type of industry.

Article 16. Adequate frequency and thoroughness of inspections to secure compliance. 1. Follow-up visits. The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the FKTU, there is no proper system to verify if employers actually carry out corrections as ordered by labour inspectors or to collect relevant data in this regard. The FKTU indicates that follow-up inspections are performed merely based on documents presented by employers, while inspection visits are carried out only when document-check is not possible. It thus considers the reinforcement of follow-up visits necessary.

In reply to the FKTU’s observations, the Government confirms that labour inspectors first verify the results of correction via documentation, and that additional follow-up visits are carried out if necessary. The Government also indicates that comprehensive review on administrative capacity and effectiveness of inspection are needed regarding follow-up visits. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the criteria used to determine when additional follow-up visits are necessary, and information on its review of the frequency and effectiveness of follow-up visits, including measures taken to ensure that follow-up visits are sufficiently comprehensive. In addition, the Committee requests that the Government provide information on the number of follow-up visits carried out compared to follow-ups based on documents, disaggregated by the size of employer and the type of industry where possible.

2. Self-improvements in advance and inspection later. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF, according to which, for small and micro enterprises (SME) which do not have sufficient resources for labour management and suffer from serious financial difficulties due to the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, administrative actions including labour inspection need to focus on providing guidance and education with the aim of preventing violation of laws at workplaces. Moreover, when any violation of law is found by labour inspectors, sufficient period needs to be given for enterprises so that they can voluntarily correct the issues on their own, rather than immediately imposing penalty or judicial actions.

The Committee also notes the observation of the FKTU that a new principle is set for regular inspections in 2021, namely “self-check first and inspection later”. Accordingly, employers are given one month to make self-improvements to comply with relevant laws, a number of workplaces are then selected for inspection. The FKTU indicates that the new principle leaves room for employers to adopt stopgap measure in efforts to brace for labour inspections and is not helpful to correct problems or enable the effective enforcement of law. The FKTU considers that labour inspection should be carried out more actively in order to ensure the consistent enforcement of relevant laws and regulations.

In response to the observations of the FKTU, the Government indicates that the principle of “self-check first and inspection later” was established considering the difficulties faced by enterprises in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. The number of workplaces subject to self-improvement is three times the number of workplaces actually inspected. The Government considers that the measure is expected to further strengthen the protection of workers by encouraging more enterprises to comply with the law voluntarily. Moreover, in case of violations requiring immediate correction, on-site inspections are promptly carried out without granting self-improvement period, including through unannounced inspection visits. Therefore, the new principle does not give opportunities for employers to conceal any violations before the inspection. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of workplaces benefiting from the “self-check” period, the number of workplaces selected for inspection and the criteria for such selection, as well as the results of the inspection visits, including violations identified, corrective measures ordered, judicial action undertaken and sanctions imposed. Recalling that self-inspection and self-assessment should be complementary to, and not replace, labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted in order to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary to ensure effective application of the relevant legal provisions.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report. The Committee notes the extracts of the annual Employment and Labour White Paper provided by the Government, which contain information as required by clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Article 21 of the Convention. However, the Committee notes that there is no information on the number of workplaces liable to labour inspection as required by Article 21(c) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that annual reports are published and contain information on the number of workplaces liable to labour inspection as required by Articles 20 and 21(c) of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s response.

Articles 6, 10 and 16 of the Convention. Conditions of service of labour inspectors. Number of labour inspectors and inspection visits. The Committee previously noted that the increase in the number of labour inspectors was not sufficient to cover the increase in the volume of cases handled by them, and that labour inspectors were likely to be exposed to overtime work of more than 12 hours a week.

In response to the previous requests of the Committee, the Government indicates that the number of labour inspectors continues to increase every year, from 1,694 in 2016 to 2,894 in 2019 (2,213 for labour standards and 681 for occupational safety and health) to 3,122 in 2021 and that additional recruitment is still ongoing. The Government also indicates that the monthly average amount of overtime was 18.71 hours in 2020, reduced by 16.6 per cent (3.72 hours) compared to 2016. The overtime allowances are paid per hour, calculated as 150 per cent of the hourly amount converted from the monthly wage based on each salary grade. The Committee also notes that, according to the salary table provided by the Government, labour inspectors receive similar remuneration with the police and firefighting officials. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of labour inspectors, the amount of overtime worked by inspectors, and any updates on comparative remuneration between labour inspectors, police, and firefighting officials.

Article 12(1)(a). Unannounced visits. The Government indicates that, while unannounced inspections were carried out from 2015–17 regarding basic employment rules in small businesses and vulnerable sectors, since 2018 the inspection plans were communicated in advance to allow employers to voluntarily rectify faults, considering that small businesses need prior instructions and guidance as they are more likely to violate the law by ignorance. The Committee notes that, according to the statistics information provided by the Government, in 2017, 5,859 announced inspections were carried out in total, while 16,705 inspection visits were conducted without prior notice. As from 2018, the large majority of inspections were announced inspections. In 2019, there were 20,714 announced inspection and 4,700 unannounced inspections carried out. In addition, the number of violations detected increased substantially, from 45,955 (17,835 by announced inspection and 28,120 by unannounced inspection) in 2017, to 89,564 (71,350 by announced inspection and 18,214 by unannounced inspection) in 2019. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, while the number of inspections decreased after 2019 because of reduced face-to-face contact in the context of COVID-19, it intends to rebound the target number of inspection visits and increase unannounced inspections. The Government indicates that unannounced inspections include planned inspections targeting vulnerable sectors to cover institutional blind spots, report-based inspections related to wage arrears and complaint-based inspections. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to make visits to workplaces liable to inspection without previous notice in conformity with Article 12(1)(a). It also requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure the compliance of SMEs with basic employment rules, including the number of inspections of different types carried out and the results achieved.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the 2017 observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Government’ reply thereto.

Article 3 of the Convention. Primary functions of labour inspectors. 1. Supervision of trade union activities. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that, from the second half of 2013, inspections were no longer conducted on the paid time-off system for union officials. However, the Committee notes the observations of the KCTU that, following a fatal accident at the shipyards, labour inspectors carried out an inspection to investigate the activities of union officials, including the implementation of the paid time-off system.

The Committee once again recalls that, according to Article 3(1) and (2) of the Convention, the primary functions of the labour inspection system shall be to monitor and secure the conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and that any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors should not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. The Committee recalls that it expressed reservations in its 2006 General Survey, Labour inspection, paragraph 80, regarding excessive use of close supervision by labour inspectors of the activities of trade unions and employers’ organizations, to the extent that it takes the form of acts of interference in these organizations’ legitimate activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure that supervision of trade union activities is carried out in relation to the protection of the rights of trade unions and their members, but does not take the form of acts of interference in their legitimate activities and internal affairs.

2. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes the statement by the KCTU that there have been cases in which labour inspectors effectively coerced employers and workers into a settlement rather than conducting investigations. The Committee notes the Government’s response that sometimes there is a delay in investigations due to the excessive workloads of labour inspectors, and that therefore some cases were settled through agreements instead. The Government states that it plans to increase the number of inspectors to enable them to carry out thorough investigations. The Committee urges the Government to take specific measures to ensure that the functions assigned to labour inspectors do not interfere with the main objective of labour inspectors to ensure the protection of workers in accordance with labour inspectors’ primary duties as provided for in Article 3(1) of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the time and resources of the labour inspectorate spent on the settlement of disputes in relation to their primary duties as provided for in Article 3(1).

Articles 3(1) and 17. Activities of the labour inspectorate in the area of non-discrimination and prompt legal proceedings. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that measures have been taken to strengthen the enforcement of legal provisions pertaining to non-discrimination, by introducing punitive damages for violations, expanding the scope of application for corrective action against discrimination, and organizing training twice a year for labour inspectors on policies related to non-regular workers (such as part-time workers, non-permanent contract workers, temporary agency workers and domestic workers). The Government states that, since 2016, it has become mandatory to include discrimination against non-regular workers in the checklist of any inspection and that the guidelines for fixed-term workers’ job security has been established and implemented. The Committee further notes that, pursuant to the amendments in 2012 to the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (section 15(2)) and the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers (section 21(2)), labour inspectors have also been empowered to carry out investigations and issue corrective orders to address discriminatory treatment, and in case of continuous violations, they may refer cases to a local labour relations commission for investigation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to strengthen enforcement of the legal provisions pertaining to equality and non-discrimination. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of inspections undertaken in this respect, the number of violations detected, the number of corrective orders issued and completed, disaggregated from the action taken by the labour relations commissions.

Articles 5(b) and 13. Collaboration of the labour inspection with employers and workers and their organizations in the area of occupational safety and health (OSH). The Committee notes the observations of the FKTU that serious accidents, including fatalities, continue to be frequent in shipbuilding, attributable in large part to the multi-level subcontracting structure of the industry. The FKTU also states that measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of workers have been taken solely after the occurrence of an accident, but not for preventive purposes. The Committee notes the Government’s response that it takes proactive action to suspend business operations where there is an imminent risk detected after reports from workers or as a result of technical support from the Korean Occupational Safety and Health Agency. The Government indicates that, pursuant to section 51 of the OSH Act, such suspension of operations can also be ordered to prevent risks and protect workers’ health during OSH inspectors’ guidance and inspections. The Government also indicates that it took various activities to prevent industrial accidents at shipbuilding enterprises, including periodic close monitoring by inspectors when necessary, but that fatal and other serious accidents still occur frequently in the shipbuilding sector. The Government indicates that 79 severe accidents occurred in shipbuilding from 2014–16, after which inspectors took immediate action: ordering the suspension of business operations, performing thorough inspections on safety and health management, and issuing orders for improvement. According to the Government, there has been an increase in the number of workplaces inspected by OSH inspectors (20,299 in 2014 to 26,920 in 2016), the number of workplaces where violations are detected (15,765 in 2014 up to 18,426 in 2018), and a subsequent increase in the number of fines imposed (9,645 in 2014 up to 13,051 in 2016) and corrective or suspension measures ordered (14,856 in 2014 to 17,489 in 2016). In addition, the Government indicates that, through special inspections, stronger action has been taken for violations of enterprises with a high incidence of serious accidents: in 2016, 1.5 times more judicial action was taken and the amount of the fines imposed doubled from 2015 (240 cases of judicial action and more than 400 million South Korean won (KRW) in fines were imposed in 2015 compared with 370 cases of judicial action and more than KRW1 billion in fines were imposed in 2016). The Government further indicates that within this year it will revise the law to ensure that principal contractors are assigned more responsibility for protecting subcontracted workers from industrial accidents, including being subjected to stronger penalties. Noting the absence of disaggregated statistics on suspension measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of suspension orders issued in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers, disaggregated by those issued for preventative purposes and those issued after the occurrence of an industrial accident. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures it is taking to ensure that labour inspectors are able to secure the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to the protection of workers engaged in multi-level subcontracting structures. It requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the measures taken, including the number of industrial accidents reported, the judicial actions undertaken and the penalties imposed and collected, disaggregated where possible by industry, including shipbuilding. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation strengthening principal contractor responsibilities and penalties for industrial accidents as soon as it has been enacted, and to provide information on the effects of this legislation once implemented.

Article 5(a) and 7. Effective cooperation and adequate training. The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU alleging that the Ministry of Employment and Labour (MoEL) applies internal administrative interpretations arbitrarily or contrary to court precedents concerning hours of work, maternity and childcare leave, and the scope of imminent risk of an industrial accident. The Committee notes the Government’s response that the inconsistencies existing in judicial and administrative interpretations may hinder legal predictability at the workplace level, and that therefore it was amending the Labour Standards Act. In this respect, the Committee takes note of the adoption in 2018 of the revised Labour Standards Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken or envisaged to enhance the adherence of the labour inspection services to the decisions of the judicial system. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors receive appropriate training with a view to ensuring consistency between judicial and administrative interpretations of the Labour Standards Act.

Articles 6, 15(a) and (c). Independence, professional integrity of labour inspectors and their duty of confidentiality. The Committee notes the KCTU’s statement that there have been cases in which labour inspectors failed to pursue active investigations or delayed them, or induced workers to withdraw a case even though there were violations. The union also refers to cases of corruption and bribery involving labour inspectors, including the possibility of being offered a job after retirement. The KCTU further states that as a result of such close and collusive relationships between certain labour inspectors and employers, the identity of complainants can be disclosed. Complainants then suffer reprisals, including dismissals, although such treatment is legally prohibited (section 104 of the Labour Standards Act and section 81(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act).

Concerning issues regarding corruption and conflicts of interest, the Committee notes the Government’s response that to prevent these illegal acts, measures to strengthen anti-corruption education have been taken and that it is running a reporting center for public officials’ illegal conduct including incorrect or arbitrary interpretations, breach of confidentiality obligations, corruption and conflicts of interest. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it will more closely monitor the requirement that labour inspectors protect the identity of complainants. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 15(a) of the Convention, labour inspectors shall be prohibited from having any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision, and that Article 6 of the Convention requires that inspection staff be composed of public officials whose status and conditions of service are such that they are assured of stability of employment and are independent of improper external influences. Noting the information on the measures to fight against corruption of public servants, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors do not have any conflict of interest, whether direct or indirect, in the workplaces under their supervision. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in practice, the confidentiality of the existence of a complaint, as well as the identity of the complainant, is protected, in accordance with Article 15(c) of the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 104 of the Labour Standards Act and section 81(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, which prohibit dismissal or other unfair treatment for reporting violations to labour inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report. The Committee welcomes the statistics provided by the Government in its report. Recalling that publishing annual reports is required under Article 20 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that annual reports containing the subjects under Article 21(a)–(g) of the Convention are published and transmitted to the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), received in 2017, and of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), communicated with the Government’s report, and the Government’s reply thereto.

Articles 6, 10, 16 and 17 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and inspection visits, conditions of service of labour inspectors and enforcement. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report, in reply to its previous request, that the workload of labour inspectors persists despite a steady increase in the number of labour inspectors since 2012. The Government indicates that in 2016, there were 1,282 labour inspectors (up from 1,241 in 2012) and 412 OSH inspectors (up from 362 in 2012), but that the number of workplaces subject to labour and OSH inspections has also continued to rise. The Government indicates that the decision was made to add 500 more labour inspectors in the second half of 2017 with further increases in 2018. According to the statistics provided by the Government, the number of inspections increased from 2014 to 2016 (16,889 inspections in 2014 to 21,465 in 2016, and 20,299 OSH inspections in 2014 to 26,920 in 2016), accompanied by an increase in the number of cases of judicial action ordered. In 2016, 1,410 cases related to labour law violations were referred to judicial proceedings following labour inspection procedures (corrections or suspension measures and fines), compared with 331 cases in 2014. In the area of OSH, 4,285 cases were referred for judicial action, compared with 2,447 cases in 2014. The Committee also notes the revision of the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors (Directive No. 185) that aims to strengthen compliance by, among other measures, enabling labour inspectors to take immediate judicial action regarding serious violations and expedite corrective action through shortening the applicable time limits.

The Committee notes the observations of the KCTU that the increase in the number of labour inspectors has not been sufficient to cover the increase in the volume of cases handled by them, and that in a number of cases the Ministry of Employment and Labour did not begin investigations even when significant suspicion was raised about violations of workplace laws, allowing employers sufficient time to destroy evidence. Referring to a study released in 2015 by the Korean Labour Institute indicating that labour inspectors are likely to be exposed to overtime work of more than 12 hours a week, the KCTU emphasizes the importance of monitoring the implementation of the Government’s plan to increase the number of labour inspectors. The Committee urges the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate, as required under Article 10 of the Convention. It also asks the Government to provide information on the implementation of its plan to increase the number of labour inspectors, including its impact on the performance of labour inspection activities and the conditions of work for labour inspectors. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the amount of overtime currently being worked by inspectors and to provide further information on any measures taken or envisaged to improve their conditions of service. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on levels of compensation and working conditions for labour inspectors compared to other civil servants exercising similar authority or with comparable levels of responsibility. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings for the cases referred following labour inspections.

Article 12(1)(a). Unannounced visits. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that, pursuant to the 2010 amendments to the Work Guidelines for Labour Inspectors, a ten-day prior notice to the employer is required for a regular inspection visit (section 17 of the Work Guidelines), but that occasional and special visits are conducted without advance notice mainly based upon complaints. With regard to OSH inspections, it notes that, pursuant to section 13 of the Work Guidelines for OSH Inspectors, OSH inspections shall be carried out without prior notice in principle except when an inspection visit needs to be made outside business hours or where free access is not allowed for military or security reasons. In addition, the Committee notes the introduction of the Integrated Unpaid Wage Report System. Under the system, anyone can confidentially report cases of unpaid wages to the labour inspectorate, upon which unannounced inspections can be initiated. According to the Government, the number of unannounced inspections was substantially reduced (by more than two-thirds) from 14,985 in 2014 to 4,606 in 2015, before being somewhat increased to 6,351 in 2016, a number roughly equivalent to the 6,297 regular inspections that year. The Committee notes that since 2015, a significant number of new inspections regarding basic employment rules have been carried out (9,045 in 2015 and 8,578 in 2016). The Government indicates that it continues to expand the number of unannounced inspections in order to strengthen compliance with basic employment rules, such as minimum wages, payment of wages and hours of work. Further to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether inspections regarding basic employment rules are carried out without prior notice. It also requests the Government to provide information on the reasons for the significant decrease in the number of unannounced inspections since 2014. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of unannounced visits, including those initiated upon complaints made under the Integrated Unpaid Wage Report System, as compared to the total number of inspection visits, and to provide information, disaggregated between announced and unannounced visits, on the results secured from these inspections (violations identified, corrective measures ordered, judicial action undertaken and sanctions imposed and collected).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Referring to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following additional points.

Article 3 of the Convention. Functions of the labour inspection system. The Committee noted in its previous comment the Federation of Korean Trade Unions’ (FKTU) indication that field labour inspectors focused on subjects that should be left to autonomous collective bargaining, such as the implementation of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act concerning the maximum limits imposed on paid time off for full-time union officials and the establishment of a single bargaining channel among trade unions in a framework of trade union pluralism. The Government indicated that labour inspectors could provide guidance on the paid time-off system and the bargaining representative system for multiple unions, which had taken effect in 2011, in order to prevent any violations.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the present report that, in 2013, labour inspectors undertook inspections of 140 workplaces related to the paid time-off system, with violations detected and corrected in 13 workplaces. The Government indicates that it has concluded that the paid time-off system is now well established, and that from the second half of 2013 inspections were no longer conducted in this regard. In this respect, the Committee notes the information submitted by the FKTU concerning violations detected in the course of inspections, indicating that, while 316 violations of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act were detected in 2012, this dropped to 24 violations in 2013 and only one such violation in the first six months of 2014.

Articles 3(1) and 17. Activities of the labour inspectorate in the area of non-discrimination. The Committee notes the FKTU’s statement in its last observation that the authority of the labour inspectorate should be fully exercised to address discrimination against non-regular workers, which represent 44 per cent of all workers in the country. These workers have difficulty using the complaints procedure to address discrimination due to their non-regular status, and only 100 complaints were received in 2013 concerning discrimination. The FKTU indicates that addressing discrimination against these workers should be included within the scope of inspections of all workplaces, and that these inspections should be thorough in verifying that workplaces instructed to address discrimination do so.

The Committee notes the Government’s response that it is strengthening inspections especially for workplaces employing a large number of non-regular workers, in addition to providing education about how to prevent discrimination, and improve the system for the protection of non-regular workers. Since August 2012, labour inspectors have been authorized to instruct workplaces to correct discrimination against non-regular workers, and the inspectorate has since conducted inspections of workplaces that employ a large number of non-regular workers. It also indicates that the Government is taking steps to analyse the data collected on discrimination and to strengthen the education provided to labour inspectors on this subject. The Government indicates that, in 2013, it conducted inspections in 555 workplaces focused on discrimination. The Committee observes that this represents a significant decline from the 2,122 inspections carried out in this respect in 2012. The Committee asks that the Government pursue and strengthen its efforts towards the enforcement of the legal provisions pertaining to equality and non-discrimination, and to continue to provide information on the measures taken in this regard. It asks that the Government provide information on the number of inspections undertaken focused on this subject, as well as figures on the complaints received, the instructions for corrections issued and the penalties applied. It also asks the Government to provide information on the training organized for inspectors in the area of non-discrimination, including details on the frequency of such courses, the number of participants, their specific subject matter and duration.

Articles 5(b) and 13. Collaboration of the labour inspection with employers and workers and their organizations in the area of occupational safety and health (OSH). The Committee notes the statement of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), received on 26 August 2011, that the Republic of Korea reports the largest death toll by industrial accidents among OECD countries. It highlights in particular the high number of industrial accidents in shipbuilding, and indicates that there are insufficient inspections to curb industrial accidents. The labour inspectorate lacks staff and capacity to conduct investigations and conduct follow-up measures.

The Committee notes the Government’s response, received on 26 October 2011, that it is not possible to make a simple comparison of industrial accident statistics between countries because the methods for producing such statistics, the distribution of industries and the scope of accidents considered to be work-related differ from country to country. The Government states that the industrial accident prevention system in the country includes labour inspectors from the Industrial Accident Prevention Division, and labour and advisory offices from the Occupational Safety and Health Agency jointly conduct accident prevention activities. Members of workers’ and employers’ organizations are also appointed to do self-checks in OSH, and participate in workplace inspections conducted by inspectors. The Government states, therefore, that the number of labour inspectors compared to the number of workers cannot be used as the sole indicator for the appropriate number of inspectors. The Committee asks that the Government provide information on the preventive activities carried out by labour inspectors in the area of OSH in line with Article 13 of the Convention, particularly in the shipbuilding sector, including measures with immediate executory force taken in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers. It also asks that the Government provide further information on the measures taken to reinforce the prevention of industrial accidents in cooperation with employers and workers and their organizations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Government’s reply thereto, both received with the Government’s report on 4 September 2014.

Articles 10, 16 and 17 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and inspection visits. The Committee previously noted the FKTU’s comment on the scarcity of inspection personnel, indicating that, at the current rate of inspection, it would take approximately 50 years to inspect all workplaces.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is a shortage of labour inspectors despite its consistent efforts to increase their number, and that it will continue to make efforts to increase this number. In this regard, the Government indicates that in 2012, there were 1,687,476 workplaces subject to inspection, and 1,359 labour inspectors. The Government indicates that it undertakes inspections based on the type of business and the size of the workplace to maximize the effectiveness of inspections. Intensive inspections are conducted in construction and other vulnerable industries or small-sized workplaces employing large numbers of adolescents, women or foreign workers to ensure that the employees of workplaces with poor working conditions are covered. For occupational safety and health, inspections are focused on workplaces with poor safety and health management or those at high risk of accidents, including workplaces where an industrial accident has taken place, workplaces with high accident rates or workplaces in sectors where accidents occur frequently. The Committee notes that, in 2013, 22,245 workplaces were inspected concerning the Labour Standards Act, 90 per cent of which were found to have violated labour laws. With regard to occupational safety and health, 82 per cent of the 18,812 workplaces inspected were found to be in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, prior to applying judicial measures, workplaces are given the opportunity to take corrective measures to address a violation. For this reason, not many workplaces found to be in violation of the law were the subject of judicial action: in 2013, 177 workplaces (284 cases) faced judicial sanction.

The Committee notes the statement of the FKTU that more labour inspectors are needed, as there are too many workplaces for each inspector to supervise and inspect (approximately 1,736 workplaces per inspector). The significant number of workplaces found to be in violation of the labour legislation indicates that violations are prevalent in the labour market. Although increasing the number of labour inspectors is essential in preventing infringements of the rights of workers, the Government has not done this.

The Committee recalls that, according to Article 10 of the Convention, the number of labour inspectors should be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate in light of the number of workplaces liable to inspection, the number of workers employed therein, the number and complexity of the legal provisions to be enforced, as well as the material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors and the practical conditions under which inspection visits must be carried out in order to be effective. Moreover, pursuant to Article 16, workplaces should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee accordingly asks that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate, including the inspection of workplaces as often and as thoroughly as necessary. Noting the high percentage of workplaces inspected that were found to be in violation of provisions of the Labour Standards Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Committee asks that the Government take measures to strengthen enforcement in this regard, and to provide information on the impact of the measures taken. It asks that the Government provide further information on the nature of the cases which were the subject of judicial proceedings (specifying the legal provisions concerned, the nature and the severity of the violations and the number of workers affected), as well as the penalties applied. The Committee further asks that the Government provide information, in addition to the number of inspectors (disaggregated by sex) and workplaces liable to inspection, on the number of workers employed in these workplaces.

Articles 12(1)(a) and 15(c). Right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely; confidentiality of complaints. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 17 of the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors, inspections should be subject to a ten-day prior notice to the employer. It noted the indication of the FKTU that an inspection system allowing for unannounced inspections to take place without advance notice had still not been introduced in practice. However, it noted the Government’s indication that the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors was amended in April 2010 to allow for some unannounced inspections.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to the 2010 amendments, a ten-day prior notice to the employer is required for a regular inspection visit, but occasional and special inspection visits are conducted without advance notice in principle. The Government indicates that occasional inspection visits are carried out for most inspections conducted pursuant to complaints, and that these visits are conducted without notice to maintain the confidentiality of complaints. Approximately 30 per cent of workplaces inspected in 2013 received unannounced visits. The Government indicates that, for regular inspections, a ten-day advance notice is given to increase the predictability of labour inspection and thus provide the employer with an opportunity to voluntarily correct any violations. With reference to paragraph 263 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee recalls that the performance of a sufficient number of unannounced inspection visits, as compared to inspections with prior notice, is necessary to enable labour inspectors to discharge their obligation of confidentiality with regard to the source of any complaint and also to prevent the establishment of any link between the inspection and a complaint (Article 15(c)). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that a sufficient number of unannounced inspection visits by the relevant authorities are carried out. It also requests that the Government take appropriate measures to ensure that the duty of confidentiality regarding the existence of a complaint is duly reflected in both law and practice and to provide information on the operation and impact of these measures in practice. In this regard, it asks that the Government continue to provide information on the number of unannounced visits as compared to the total number of inspection visits during the next reporting period and to provide information on the results secured from these inspections (violations identified, sanctions imposed and compliance actions taken).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee takes note of the comments by the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) received with the Government’s report along with the Government’s reply thereto, as well as the comments by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) which were received at the ILO on 29 August 2011 and were communicated to the Government on 6 September 2011. The Committee requests the Government to make any observation it deems appropriate with regard to the comments made by the KCTU.

Article 3 of the Convention. Functions of the labour inspection system. The Committee notes that according to the FKTU, the field labour inspectors focus on subjects which should be normally left to autonomous collective bargaining, like the implementation of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TURLAA) concerning the maximum limits imposed on paid time off for full-time union officials and the establishment of a single bargaining channel among trade unions in a framework of trade union pluralism. According to the FKTU, labour inspectors misuse their administrative capacity on pursuing government policy and neglect to inspect employers’ compliance with labour standards, occupational safety rules and collective agreements. The Government responds that labour inspectors can give guidance on collective bargaining and on preventing and settling labour disputes, as part of their duties; they thus provide guidance on the paid time-off system and the bargaining representative system for multiple unions which took effect on 1 July 2011, in order to prevent any violations.

The Committee recalls that according to paragraph 80 of its General Survey of 2006 on Labour Inspection, it is important to ensure – when the role assigned to labour inspectors in the field of industrial relations takes the form of close supervision of trade union activities so as to ensure that they do not exceed the limits laid down by legal provisions – that this supervision does not involve acts of interference in these organizations’ legitimate activities. It also recalls that the primary role of the labour inspectorate, pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2), is to monitor the conditions in which work is performed, and that any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors should not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide further information on the nature of the activities carried out by the labour inspectorate for the implementation of legal provisions concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining and to specify the proportion of these activities in relation to those focused on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work.

Articles 10 and 16. Number of labour inspectors and inspection visits. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government provides information according to which, the number of inspection visits has continued to increase in the period 2009–10 amounting to 19,881 visits on labour matters and 27,415 visits on occupational safety and health (OSH), while the total number of labour inspectors as of 31 May 2011 was 1,413. The Government adds that the total number of workplaces and workers in 2008 amounted to 1,422,261 workplaces and 12,448,992 workers. The Committee notes that the FKTU criticizes the scarcity of inspection personnel and indicates that on the basis of the above statistics, it would take approximately 50 years to inspect all workplaces.

The Committee recalls that according to Article 10 of the Convention, the number of labour inspectors should be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate in light of the number of workplaces liable to inspection, the number of workers employed therein, the number and complexity of the legal provisions to be enforced as well as the material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors and the practical conditions under which visits of inspection must be carried out in order to be effective. Moreover, according to Article 16, workplaces should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide an evaluation of the needs of the labour inspectorate in human resources in light of the criteria provided in Article 10 of the Convention and indicate the proportion of the national budget allocated to labour inspection and the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the distribution of labour inspectors by region, category and level of qualification.

Article 5(a), 17, 18 and 21(e). Effective enforcement and cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that only 127 violations of labour law and 1,782 violations of OSH legislation were brought to justice in 2010, while 16,905 and 21,298 cases respectively were treated through administrative action. It notes that the FKTU criticizes this practice as ineffective in preventing industrial accidents and states that most violations detected by the labour inspectorate are petty offences with extremely few cases of judicial treatment. The Government answers that the number of cases that go through judicial process may be low since most employers comply with the correction orders issued by labour inspectors. In cases of special inspection or when the same violation is committed again in three years, more severe actions such as immediate judicial action or imposition of negligence fines are taken. The Government indicates that it plans to reorganize the electronic document system of labour inspection so as to systematically manage the history of labour law violations by employers and allow for closer cooperation with the public prosecutors and the courts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the nature of the violations detected by the labour inspectors with reference to the legal provisions concerned and the types of corrective measures ordered. It would also be grateful if the Government would provide further information on the nature of the cases brought to the justice system (specifying the legal provisions concerned and the number of workers affected), as well as the duration and outcome of the judicial proceedings (convictions pronounced, penalties imposed, etc.).

The Committee also requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of progress made in setting up the electronic document system and to provide an evaluation of its impact, once it is established, on the cooperation with the justice system and the observance of the legal provisions pertaining to conditions of work and the protection of workers.

Article 5(a) and (b). Cooperation between the labour inspection services and private institutions and collaboration with employers or their organizations. The KEF refers to an “E-self Evaluation System” allowing employers to check their practices and correct any violations of legal provisions by themselves, as well as the “Self-Improving Working Condition Program” carried out in alliance with private institutions in order to enhance the effectiveness of labour inspection and encourage voluntary compliance. According to the KEF, private institutions involved in this programme measure the compliance of companies with labour laws and present ways to improve their working conditions so that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with little information on labour law can observe the laws voluntarily. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the operation in practice of the “Self-Improving Working Condition Program”, in particular, the procedure for the authorization by the labour inspectorate of the private enterprises which carry out the programme, the manner in which they are supervised by the labour inspectorate, their functioning (scope of activity, safeguards of independence, the costs associated with their services, their availability to small and medium enterprises, etc.) as well as their impact on increasing compliance with legislation on conditions of work and the protection of workers in individual workplaces. Please also provide details on, and indicate any assessment of the impact of the “E-self Evaluation System”.

Articles 5(b), 13 and 14. Collaboration of the labour inspection with employers and workers and their organizations in the area of OSH. The Committee notes that according to the statistical information provided by the Government, the number of industrial accidents has increased between 2008 and 2009, while the number of occupational diseases has decreased. The Committee requests the Government to provide details on the preventive activities carried out by labour inspectors in the area of OSH in line with Article 13 of the Convention including measures with immediate executory force taken in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers, and to describe the procedure in force for the recording and notification of industrial accidents and occupational diseases.

Also, recalling the indications provided in Paragraphs 4–5 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81) with regard to safety committees or similar bodies, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to reinforce the prevention of industrial accidents in cooperation with employers and workers and their organizations.

Articles 12(1)(a) and (b) and 15(c). Right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely, confidentiality of complaints, and period of time when inspections are carried out. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to bring section 17 of the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors, which provided that inspections should be subject to a ten-day prior notice to the employer, in line with the provisions of Article 12 of the Convention which provides that inspectors provided with proper credentials should be able to enter freely and without previous notice any workplace liable to inspection. The Committee notes that according to the FKTU, an inspection system allowing for unannounced inspections to take place without advance notice has still not been introduced in practice. It also notes that according to the Government, the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors was amended in April 2010 to allow for unannounced inspections of workplaces; as a result, currently, notice of inspection is given only for regular inspections while occasional and special inspections may be conducted without advance notice. According to the Government, in 2010, 6,294 unannounced inspections took place, on the basis of which 17,577 cases of violations were detected in 4,724 workplaces; of these workplaces, 48 were brought to justice and 4,676 received administrative action.

The Committee notes that if regular inspections are always carried out with advance notice, it is very difficult, in case of inspection visits carried out pursuant to complaints, to avoid giving any intimation to the employer of the fact that a visit takes place consequent to a complaint, as required by Article 15(c) of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to communicate the amendment to section 17 of the Work Manual for Labour Inspectors and to indicate the manner in which the confidentiality of complaints is maintained in case of inspection visits carried out pursuant to complaints. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the percentage of unannounced inspections carried out pursuant to complaints.

The Committee also observes from the Government’s report that labour inspections normally take place during the day, and that, while inspections may be conducted at night when necessary, there are no separate statistics on these inspections. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would collect the relevant statistics and provide an indication of the percentage of labour inspection visits carried out at night.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government on the content of the 2009 White Paper on Employment and Labor (published in 2010) as well as its indication that an electronic register of workplaces has been set up and that it is examining the possibility of coordinating this system with the electronic document system of the Korean Worker’s Compensation and Welfare Service. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide a summary of the information contained in the White Paper and keep the ILO informed of developments related to the creation of the electronic registry of workplaces and its impact on the work of the labour inspection.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report which was received on 7 September 2009.

Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. Staff numbers of the labour inspection services and effectiveness of the system. The Committee takes note of the data provided by the Government in reply to the Committee’s request with regard to the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of inspections carried out in 2008. According to the Government, as of 31 December 2007, 1,432,812 workplaces were subject to labour inspection. In 2008, 24,925 workplaces were inspected. The Committee observes that this represents a significant increase in relation to the number of inspections reported for 2006 which amounted to 17,732. Nevertheless, there is still considerable room for improvement in relation to the number of workplaces subject to labour inspection. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide detailed information on the operation of the inspection system, and in particular to indicate the total number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of inspections carried out in 2009 and 2010.

Article 12(1)(a) and (b). Right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the Work Guideline for Labour Inspectors allowed for the possibility to carry out inspections without prior notice, as an exception to the general rule which is to give prior written notice of the plan of inspection to the employer. The Committee takes note of the clarifications made by the Government in its latest report with regard to the three types of labour inspection established in the law: (i) regular inspection based on the Comprehensive Plan for Workplace Labour Inspection; (ii) occasional inspection in cases where a law or regulation is enacted or revised or there is social demand; and (iii) special inspection where a labour dispute has taken place or is highly likely to take place following non-compliance with working conditions prescribed by labour laws and regulations or where social trouble is caused by failures to make statutory payments. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, pursuant to section 17 of the Work Guideline for Labour Inspectors, an employer should be notified at least ten days before labour inspection is carried out; the Government is considering ways to introduce an inspection system without advance notice in phases depending on the type of inspection (regular, occasional, special inspection).

The Committee observes from the above that, although the possibility of unannounced visits is provided for in the law, it is not applied in practice as long as an inspection system without advance notice has not been introduced. The Committee recalls that Article 12 of the Convention is intended to ensure that inspectors may carry out inspections at any time, without previous notice, with the necessary freedom for an effective inspection. Unannounced visits enable the inspector to enter the inspected premises without warning the employer, especially to avoid that the employer may be tempted to conceal a violation, by changing the usual conditions of work, preventing a witness from being present or making it impossible to carry out an inspection (see General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, paragraphs 261–263).

The Committee also observes that it is not clear from the information provided by the Government on the three types of inspection visit, whether inspection visits can take place pursuant to a complaint. It recalls that conducting unannounced visits on a regular basis is especially useful if the visit is carried out in response to a complaint, as it enables inspectors to observe the confidentiality required by Article 15(c) of the Convention regarding the purpose of the inspection (General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 263).

Consequently, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide in its next report information on progress made with regard to the adoption of an inspection system without advance notice to supplement the guidelines applicable to inspectors in accordance with the provisions of Article 12(1). The Committee also requests the Government to furnish statistical information on the number of unannounced visits which took place in 2009 and 2010, including the number of visits which took place in response to complaints.

Time when inspections are carried out. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the time when inspections may be carried out so as to give full effect to each of the provisions of Article 12(1). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no provision in the Labour Standards Act, especially its section 102 on the authority of labour inspections, which may restrict a labour inspector’s entry to workplaces at any hour of day or night, and, therefore, inspection can be conducted freely at any hour, if it is deemed necessary. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information in its next report indicating in particular the number and types of inspection visits which were carried out in the night in 2009 and 2010.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual inspection report. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the content of the “White Paper on Labour” published by the Ministry of Labour instead of an annual report and to communicate a copy within the time limits set out in Article 20. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the White Paper contains the various policies and projects pursued by the Ministry and related statistics for the year concerned and deals with all the subjects described in Article 21 of the Convention except for point (b) on the “staff of the labour inspection service”. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide in its next report a summary of the content of the White Paper with regard to Article 21(a) and (c)–(g) of the Convention, as well as the information required under point (b).

Articles 5(a) and 21(e). Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the 2009 White Paper contains information relative to the general observation made by the Committee in 2007, in particular, the number of cases reported to local labour offices and the results of their handling by the inspectorate (administrative settlement, referral to judicial treatment, imposition of a fine, etc.) The Government specifies that the results of the judicial examination are not included in the White Paper as judicial proceedings are concluded only after a decision is taken by the justice system. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report whether a system exists or is contemplated for the recording of judicial decisions so as to enable the labour inspectorate to make use of this information in pursuance of its objectives and to include it in the annual report, as envisaged in Article 21(e) of the Convention. It would also appreciate further information on any measures taken or contemplated to promote effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

With reference to its observation, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points.

Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention. Right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely. Time when inspections are carried out. The Government indicates that the Work Guideline for Labour Inspectors requires inspectors to give advanced notice of the plan of inspection in writing if there is no special reason not to do so, but that they may also carry out inspections without prior notice. However, it does not indicate the time periods during which inspections may be carried out. The Committee emphasizes that the above provisions of the Convention, under which inspectors shall be empowered “to enter freely … at any hour of the day or night any workplace liable to inspection” and “to enter by day any premises which they have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection” are intended to enable them to carry out inspections wherever necessary and whenever possible according to the technical requirements, with a view to ensuring the protection of workers. According to the Government’s indications in its report received in 2006, this issue will be clarified in the next revision of the related laws. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in this respect and to indicate whether the guidelines applicable to inspectors have been supplemented to give full effect to each of the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 1.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual inspection report. Noting the information provided by the Government that the “White Paper on Labour” published by the Ministry of Labour instead of an annual report is circulated to public institutions and workers’ and employers’ organizations, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the content of this document, and particularly whether it contains the information required by Article 21, and if it would provide a copy within the time limits set out in Article 20.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Article 8 of the Convention. Increasing the proportion of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate. With reference to a point raised by the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), concerning the need to raise the proportion of women inspectors in the labour inspectorate in response to the strong increase in women workers, the Committee notes with satisfaction the steady progress made by the Government in this respect. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of women in the staff of the inspectorate rose from 12 to 22 per cent, thereby also responding to the request by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (92nd Session, June 2004) to increase the number of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate so that inspection services adequately address certain issues relating to the conditions of work of women.

2. Articles 10 and 16. Staff numbers of the labour inspection services and effectiveness of the system. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the appointment of 374 new inspectors in 2006 made it possible to achieve a significant increase in the number of inspections, reduce the number of days necessary to process complaints relating to labour legislation and reduce the number of labour disputes through the strengthening of prevention functions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide detailed information on the operation of the inspection system, and in particular to indicate the total number of workplaces liable to inspection by the inspection services and the number of inspections carried out over a specified period.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on certain matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee refers the Government to its observation and notes the information sent in response to the matters raised in the direct request of 2003.

Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. Strength of the inspectorate and frequency of inspection visits. The Committee notes that, following an increase in the numbers of the inspectorate in 2006, the Government plans to take measures to improve the efficiency of the inspectorate as a whole, including by stepping up the frequency of visits. The Government is asked to provide information on any new measures taken to this end and on the results obtained.

Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b). Right for inspectors to enter workplaces freely. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that there are no provisions in the law determining when inspections may be carried out, but that this will be clearly stated when the legislation is next revised. The Committee hopes that the legislation will soon be supplemented to bring it in to line with the abovementioned provisions of the Convention, and that in its next report the Government will be in a position to provide information showing progress in this respect, including copies of any relevant legal provisions.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes that an annual report, as prescribed in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, is not published separately, but that a White Paper on labour containing relevant information is published every year and detailed annual data is compiled internally. The Committee notes with interest that the information, responding to each item of Article 21, is supplied by the Government both in its report and on a CD-ROM attached thereto covering the activities of the various bodies of the Labour Department for 2004. It would be grateful if the Government would state whether the CD-ROM is circulated widely enough to be accessible by the social partners and any other concerned public or private institution and to prompt any comments and views they may have on the working of the Labour Inspectorate and on ways of making it more efficient.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report containing answers to its previous requests, and particularly to the matters raised by the Korea Employers Federation (KEF) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) which were discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (ILC) (session of June 2004).

1. Article 3, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention. Supply of information and advice to employers and workers  The Committee notes with satisfaction that in response to the request of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, training programmes were conducted in 2005 for labour inspectors, in particular in the Korea Labour Education Institute, on the law governing individual labour relations, collective industrial relations, methods of investigation and the prevention of labour disputes. It also notes that training courses on labour law are operating on the Internet and that labour inspectors responsible for industrial safety and health are appointed only on completion of training in industrial safety and receive refresher training every year.

2. Article 5(b). Collaboration between the labour inspectorate and employers and workers. In earlier comments, noting the KEF’s observations on the need for in-depth discussion, coordination and cooperation in the Industrial Safety and Health Policy Deliberation Committee (ISHPDC), the Committee asked the Government for further information regarding the work of the ISHPDC. The Committee notes with interest that, in response, the Government indicates that, during the period covered by its report, the work of this committee covered mid- and long-term basic plans on industrial accident prevention, a bill to revise the Industrial Safety and Health Act, a revision of legal provisions with a view to ensuring more efficient operation of the ISHPDC and more professional deliberation. The Government also indicates that special subcommittees were established by sector and that a legal ground was newly established to hear opinions from experts during discussion at the ISHPDC.

3. Article 8. Proportion of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes that the Government plans to take steps to increase the recruitment of women labour inspectors in response to the increase in the participation rate of women. It notes that women accounted for 12 per cent of the total inspectorate staff in 2001, and 17.6 per cent in 2005. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information indicating the distribution by sex and by branch of activity of workers covered by the Convention, and to report to the ILO any changes in the inspectorate staff, with a breakdown by sex and by grade.

The Committee is addressing a request regarding other matters directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 92nd session of the International Labour Conference (June 2004) and in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. Labour inspection staff and frequency of inspection visits (Articles 10 and 16). Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the current number of inspectors is not large enough to cover the workplaces and employees as the application of the Labour Standards Act was expanded to cover all workplaces on 1 January 1999. It has therefore computerized the labour inspection service to promote efficiency of the work of inspectors, since it would have been difficult to increase the number of labour inspectors, which had already passed from 974 in 1999 to 1,055 in 2001 despite the overall job retrenchment in public services.

The Committee also notes the information in the Government’s reports that in 1998 general inspectors conducted 110,752 inspection visits; that however, in 2000, the number of visits was reduced to 1,994, which represents only 0.17 per cent of the total number of workplaces liable to inspection (1,197,000). Considering that the size of the general labour inspection staff is 739, it turns out that each inspector on average conducted merely 2.6 inspection visits during the year 2000.

The Committee requests the Government: (i) to provide additional information on the computerization of the labour inspection service, in particular on the Workplace Digitalization System launched in January 2003, and to supply any evaluation on the progress achieved in terms of promotion of efficient inspection activities; and (ii) to adopt the appropriate measures to increase the number of labour inspectors and inspection visits in order that workplaces be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary and to provide information on any progress made.

2. Right to free access of labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection (Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b)). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in practice, labour inspectors, as special judicial police officers, occasionally visit workplaces without a written order so as to identify real conditions of the workplaces. It notes, however, that the information supplied by the Government does not specify whether a time limit is imposed on this right to free access of labour inspectors. The Committee asks the Government once again to indicate whether the right for labour inspectors to enter freely and without previous notice "at any hour of the day or night" any workplaces liable to inspection (paragraph 1(a)) is guaranteed as well as the right to enter "by day any premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection" (paragraph 1(b)).

3. Annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21). The Committee notes that the annual inspection report has not been transmitted to the ILO. Recalling that these reports are an essential means of determining how the inspection system functions in practice, it hopes that the Government will not fail to send to the ILO within the time limits provided for in Article 20 copies of annual inspection reports dealing with the subjects mentioned in Article 21.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Referring also to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. Labour inspection staff and frequency of inspection visits (Articles 10 and 16). Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the current number of inspectors is not large enough to cover the workplaces and employees as the application of the Labour Standards Act was expanded to cover all workplaces on 1 January 1999. It has therefore computerized the labour inspection service to promote efficiency of the work of inspectors, since it would have been difficult to increase the number of labour inspectors, which had already passed from 974 in 1999 to 1,055 in 2001 despite the overall job retrenchment in public services.

The Committee also notes the information in the Government’s reports that in 1998 general inspectors conducted 110,752 inspection visits; that however, in 2000, the number of visits was reduced to 1,994, which represents only 0.17 per cent of the total number of workplaces liable to inspection (1,197,000). Considering that the size of the general labour inspection staff is 739, it turns out that each inspector on average conducted merely 2.6 inspection visits during the year 2000.

The Committee requests the Government: (i) to provide additional information on the computerization of the labour inspection service, in particular on the Workplace Digitalization System launched in January 2003, and to supply any evaluation on the progress achieved in terms of promotion of efficient inspection activities; and (ii) to adopt the appropriate measures to increase the number of labour inspectors and inspection visits in order that workplaces be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary and to provide information on any progress made.

2. Right to free access of labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection (Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b)). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in practice, labour inspectors, as special judicial police officers, occasionally visit workplaces without a written order so as to identify real conditions of the workplaces. It notes, however, that the information supplied by the Government does not specify whether a time limit is imposed on this right to free access of labour inspectors. The Committee asks the Government once again to indicate whether the right for labour inspectors to enter freely and without previous notice "at any hour of the day or night" any workplaces liable to inspection (paragraph 1(a)) is guaranteed as well as the right to enter "by day any premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection" (paragraph 1(b)).

3. Annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21). The Committee notes that the annual inspection report has not been transmitted to the ILO. Recalling that these reports are an essential means of determining how the inspection system functions in practice, it hopes that the Government will not fail to send to the ILO within the time limits provided for in Article 20 copies of annual inspection reports dealing with the subjects mentioned in Article 21.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reports which contain the Government’s response to the observations made by the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF) and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU).

1. Information and advice for employers and workers (Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention). In its observations, the KEF expressed the view that the labour inspectors’ function of technical information and advice needs to be reinforced through specific training programmes and to be enshrined into the provisions of national law. The Government indicates in its reply that the initial training courses are provided for those just appointed as labour inspectors, and thereafter, mid-level further training courses are operating every year for almost all the inspectors. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, one of the major functions of inspectors is to supply advice to employers and workers, although such function is not provided for in the Regulation on Duties of Labour Inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide particulars on the way in which the inspectors’ training programmes abovementioned helped them giving advice to employers and workers in practice, and on progress made in this regard.

2. Collaboration with employers and workers (Article 5(b)). Regarding the KEF’s observations on the necessity of in-depth discussion, coordination and cooperation in managing the Industrial Safety and Health Policy Deliberation Committee (ISHPDC), the Committee notes the Government’s reply that the ISHPDC, as a tripartite body, has set mid- and long-term basic plans on industrial safety and health, and that it has deliberated and coordinated major policy issues on that area. The Government adds that under the ISHPDC, a working party has been established, among others, to evaluate the annual programmes linked with the abovementioned basic plans. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on the work of the ISHPDC.

3. Proportion of women inspectors (Article 8). Regarding the observations by the FKTU, according to which the proportion of women inspectors is not appropriate since the female workers account for 41 per cent of the entire employees, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the number of women inspectors has been on the rise, for example, its proportion increased by 8.3 per cent during the period of 1999-2001, and that the Ministry of Labour has already requested the Ministry of Government Affairs and Home Affairs to increase the number of inspection staff in charge of women’s issues at regional labour offices. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee addresses a request directly to the Government concerning certain points related to other issues.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report received on 25 November 1999. It also notes the observations by the Korea Employers' Federation and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions.

In its observations the Korea Employers' Federation points out the inspector's function of technical information and advice needs to be reinforced through specific training or educational programmes (Article 3 of the Convention). In addition, the federation, referring to the current activities of the Industrial Safety and Health Policy Deliberation Committee focusing on reviewing documents and reports in writing, indicates that the said committee needs to direct its activities toward in-depth discussions, coordination and cooperation among its tripartite members (Article 5). The Federation of Korean Trade Unions for its part points to the low proportion of women in the labour inspection staff (59 women out of 711 labour inspectors). Noting that women account for 41 per cent of the employees, the federation stresses the need for the Government to make further efforts to increase the number of women inspectors (Article 8).

The Committee will examine at its next session the information provided by the Government in its report in answer to its 1998 direct request as well as any comments the Government may wish to formulate on the issues raised by the Korea Employers' Federation and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's reports. It requests the Government to provide further information and clarification on the points raised below.

1. Article 3, paragraph 1(b) and (c). The Committee notes that the Government's report does not explicitly provide information on the inspector's functions of information, advice and notification of defects or abuses not specifically covered by existing legal provisions. It requests the Government to provide such details in its next report.

2. Articles 10 and 16. The Committee notes that the total number of labour inspectors has increased from 865 in 1994 (580 general inspectors; 285 safety and health inspectors) to 935 in 1997 (646 general inspectors; 289 safety and health inspectors). The Committee notes however that the Government has provided no information as concerns the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein.

In this regard the Committee has taken note of available information contained in the 1997 Labour White Paper according to which the number of workplaces liable to inspection was 202,095 in 1997, the number of workers employed in such workplaces being 6,342,071. The Committee notes in this connection that while certain provisions of the Labour Standards Act (1953 as amended) do not apply to businesses or workplaces employing four or fewer workers, articles 104 to 109 (Chapter XI) on labour inspectors will apply as from 1 January 1999 to such businesses and workplaces by virtue of Presidential decree of 24 February 1998 (table 1). The number of workplaces liable to inspection and of workers employed in such workplaces is thus likely to increase in future.

Noting that the Government's report does not address the question of the adequacy of the number of labour inspectors, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report detailed information as to whether it considers the number of 935 labour inspectors as sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the labour inspectorate in order to ensure that in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions, and on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the situation, if necessary.

3. Article 12, paragraph 1(a), (b) and paragraph 2. The Committee notes that according to article 105(1), (3) and (4) of the Labour Standards Act and related regulations labour inspectors should present a letter of order before performing their duties. Referring also to paragraphs 157 to 168 of its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether labour inspectors are empowered to enter freely and without previous notice at any hour of the day or night any workplace liable to inspection (Article 12, paragraph 1(a)); to enter by day any premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection (Article 12, paragraph 1 (b)); and to refrain from notifying their presence, if they consider that such notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (Article 12, paragraph 2).

4. Article 15(a) and (c). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any provisions adopted or envisaged providing that labour inspectors shall be prohibited from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision (Article 15(a)) and shall treat as absolutely confidential the source of any complaint (Article 15(c)).

5. Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes that no annual inspection report has been received. The Committee recalls that these reports are an essential means of determining how the inspection system functions in practice. It hopes that the Government will send to the ILO within the time limits provided for in Article 20 copies of annual inspection reports dealing with the subjects mentioned in Article 21.