Texts of pending comments

The Committee notes the observations from the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), transmitted together with the Government’s report.

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government regarding the tripartite consultations held on matters covered by Article 5(1) of the Convention during the reporting period. The Government refers to the establishment of the International Labour Policy Working Group Meeting under the International Policy Council to conduct flexible and prompt consultations and convene other meetings, as necessary, including the Tripartite Forum on the ILO Report on the Future of Work (March 2019) and the Tripartite Preparatory Meeting for the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference (May 2021). In addition, the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESLC) was established on 20 July 2018 as a tripartite consultation body to discuss employment and labour policies as well as relevant economic and social policies, and to seek policy direction. Moreover, the Government reports that tripartite consultations were held during the reporting period regarding the possibility of ratifying the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In this respect, it refers to the establishment of the Committee for the Improvement of Laws, Measures, and Practices within the ESLC with the aim of holding tripartite consultations on reviewing laws and measures required for the ratification of the ILO fundamental Conventions as a top priority from July 2018 to May 2019. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF, which points out that, while tripartite consultations were held with regard to the revision of labour laws with the objective of ratification of the ILO fundamental Conventions mentioned, no consensus was reached due to divergent opinions. The Government indicates that recommendations containing measures to amend the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act (TULRAA) to ratify the ILO fundamental Conventions were made by public interest members. Subsequently, the TULRAA was amended on 9 December 2020, in accordance with these recommendations, and after discussions on the bill at the National Assembly. The Government adds that, in the framework of the ESCL, the social partners also reached a tripartite agreement to improve the workers’ representative system. They continued to hold active discussions on a range of labour relations issues, including protection of the fundamental rights of the dependent self-employed. In this context, the Committee notes with interest that Conventions Nos 29, 87 and 98 were ratified on 20 April 2021. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that written comments are requested from the social partners in relation to the annual reports on unratified and ratified Conventions pursuant to articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution, respectively. The Government adds that the comments received are sent to the ILO together with the corresponding government replies. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed updated information on the content and the outcome of tripartite consultations held on all matters concerning international labour standards covered by Article 5(1) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the observations from the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), the Korean Confederation of Trade unions (KCTU) and the Korea Enterprises Federation (KEF), which were received with the Government’s report on 8 September 2021, as well as the Government’s reply to them. The Committee recalls that it previously noted the observations received on 1 September 2014 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) alleging violations of trade union rights in practice, including anti-union dismissals affecting the Korean Government Employees Union and the Korean Railway Workers’ Union. The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply thereto, in particular the information on the process of resolution of the conflicts in both cases and the reinstatement of dismissed union members.

Article 2 of the Convention. Facilities granted to workers’ representatives. In its previous comments, the Committee had questioned a number of provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) prohibiting as an unfair labour practice the payment of wages by an employer to full-time trade union officials, and had requested the Government to take measures to amend them in a way which allowed the parties to determine through free and voluntary negotiation the issue of the payment of wages to full-time trade union officials. The Committee notes with interest that the TULRAA was amended on 5 January 2021 with the deletion of such provisions. Additionally, the Time-off System Deliberation Committee was transferred to the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESLC), where members representing public interest are not recommended by the Government, thus strengthening the representation of the labour and management in the determination of the time-off system. The Time-off System Deliberation Committee decided that the time-off limit would vary according to the size and geographical distribution of a trade union. Each workplace would ultimately fix the wage within the set time-off limit. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF indicating that, with the revised TULRAA, the union activities subject to the paid time-off are now determined by collective bargaining agreements. Those activities include consultation and negotiation with employers, grievance settlement, and industrial safety activities prescribed by the TULRAA and other labour laws, as well as affairs of maintaining and managing a trade union to develop healthy labour management relations.

The Committee further notes the observations from the FKTU and the KCTU raising some concerns in relation to the operation of the time-off system despite the recent amendment of the TULRAA enabling trade union officers to perform trade union duties during a pre-determined maximum working hours without loss of wage. The trade unions regret in particular the imposition of a maximum time-off limit, and the fact that paying wages exceeding this maximum time-off limit may be punished as an unfair labour practice according to the law. In the trade unions’ view, as such, the system still goes against the principle of autonomous decision and self-regulation by labour and management. In addition, the KCTU points out that recent changes on legislation, notably on safety in the workplace or on the prohibition against harassment at the workplace, has widened the scope of activities of workers’ representatives. Consequently, the time-off system should be redesigned to take into account activities that should be performed during working hours by workers’ representatives. In conclusion, in the trade unions’ view, the system needs to be improved to let labour and management freely and voluntarily determine the maximum time-off limit.

While noting the positive developments in this regard, the Committee invites the Government to continue to consult with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations on ways to improve the time-off limit system, including on the concerns raised by the FKTU and the KCTU, so that: (i) the facilities afforded to workers’ representatives enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently; and (ii) the capacity of the social partners to freely determine through collective bargaining the facilities granted to workers’ representatives is fully recognized . The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide practical information on the manner in which the maximum time-off limits are applied under the new system, on the number of complaints of unfair labour practices for payment of wage exceeding the maximum time-off limit, and the sanctions imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the FKTU, the workers’ representative system is characterized by the absence of regulations and sanctions concerning the method and procedure for the election of workers’ representatives, the legal status and authority of workers’ representatives, or concerning employers’ interference in elections and activities of workers’ representatives. The FKTU indicates that the Government and the social partners have agreed to improve the related laws and institutions under the Committee for the Improvement of Laws, Measures, and Practices for Labour Relations Development under the Economy, Society, and Labour Council. The Committee notes, from the Government’s report, that it is committed to sustain its efforts to strengthen the protection of the rights and protection of workers’ representatives, including through the Tripartite Agreement on Improving the Workers’ Representative System (19 February 2021). The Government asserts in particular that a bill reflecting the results of discussion has been submitted and that the new legislation will include matters regarding the election of workers’ representatives via direct, secret, and unsigned voting, the recognition of hours dedicated to union activity as working hours, and establishing a three-year term for workers’ representatives. Welcoming the indication that a new legislation will specify the facilities and protection afforded to workers’ representatives and hoping that such legislation will enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on any developments in this regard.

Lastly, the Committee notes with interest the ratification of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), registered in April 2021. The Committee is hopeful that the ratification of these fundamental Conventions will contribute positively to the implementation of the present Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2016 and 2018 entered into force for the Republic of Korea on 8 January 2019 and 26 December 2020, respectively. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and on 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying States have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any temporary measures adopted in this regard, their duration and their impact on seafarers’ rights.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 3, of the Convention. Scope of application. Cadets. In its previous comments, noting that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter, MOF) had determined, after consultation of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, that cadets are not to be regarded as seafarers, the Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection provided for by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's information that the MLC, 2006 does not provide for a definition of cadets and it is difficult to regard a trained seafarer aboard a Korean ship as a seafarer because they do not sign a labour contract or have a separate job on board. The Government further indicates that the MOF enacted and revised regulations in consideration of the need for cadets to be distinguished from seafarers and receive separate protection in view of their training condition. In particular, the Government indicates that the rights of trainees are protected as they sign an on-site embarkation practice agreement rather than a labour contract (section 21-2 of the Ship Employees Act). While taking note of the Government’s information, the Committee recalls that the Convention adopts a wide definition of seafarer in order to afford protection and decent working and living conditions to all persons working in any capacity on board (Article II, paragraph1(f)). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers in conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee reiterates that, as foreseen in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention, governments, in consultation with social partners, could agree on substantial equivalent measures applicable to cadets where needed.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5, of the Convention. Scope of application. Ships. The Committee previously noted that exemptions are made to several provisions of the Seafarers’ Act and other regulatory texts for ships “engaged in coastal waters”. The Committee requested the Government to explain the meaning of the expression “ships engaged in coastal waters”. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ships Safety Act, which implements the SOLAS Convention, designates as “coastal waters” the sea area within 20 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea. The Committee further notes that various sections (e.g. sections 19 and 29) of the Marine Notice on Ship Facilities Standards (hereinafter, Notice on ship facilities) mention “ships engaging beyond coastal waters” as separate from “ships engaged in international voyages”, excluding part of the first from the application of the requirements of the Convention (see under Regulation 3.1). The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that any ships that navigate exclusively in territorial waters are not subject to the application of the MLC, 2006. In this regard, the Government indicates that it defines “waters closely adjacent to sheltered waters” as territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline). The Committee recalls that the MLC, 2006 does not contain the concept of “coastal waters” and that ships excluded from the scope of application with respect of the navigational area are defined under Article II, paragraph 1(i). It also recalls that, as the MLC, 2006 does not explicitly define the terms “closely adjacent to” or “sheltered waters” used in Article II, paragraph 1(i), it is for the competent authority of the Member to determine, in good faith and on a tripartite basis, taking into account the objectives of the Convention and the physical features of the country, which areas could be considered as “sheltered waters” and what distance away from those waters could be considered as “closely adjacent to sheltered waters”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) how it has taken into account the above-mentioned criteria when defining waters “closely adjacent to sheltered waters”; and (ii) the number of ships excluded from the application of the Convention as a result of this definition.

The Committee notes that the Government has taken measures to extend the scope of legislation implementing Regulation 3.1 to cover ships which were previously excluded (see below). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify how the rest of the provisions implementing the Convention apply to all ships covered by it.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1. Minimum age. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, pursuant to section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, a shipowner shall not appoint a person under 16 years of age as a seafarer, “provided, however, that this shall not apply to a vessel on which only his/her family works”. It requested the Government to amend section 91(1) in order to ensure that no exceptions are permitted to the minimum age for work. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the exception under section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act takes into account the types of fishing partly operated as a family business. The Government specifies that persons under 16 years of age cannot participate in any maritime training courses nor be issued a seaman’s book, thus they cannot board ships. The Government further indicates that a bill to revise these regulations was pending at the National Assembly and will be presented again at a later date. While recalling that the Convention does not apply to fishing vessels, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the amendment of section 91(1) of the Seafarers’ Act to ensure conformity with Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee previously noted that section 92 of the Seafarers’ Act provides for exceptions to the prohibition of night work for seafarers under 18 years: “(1) where a shipowner has obtained the consent of such a seafarer and approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as “easy work”; (2) on a ship on which only a family works …”. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in the current seafarers’ education and training system, the prohibition of night work for seafarers under the age of 18 years exists, but there are exceptions only when the navigational watch training of cadets is concerned, in accordance with the curricula of the Maritime High School. The Committee further notes the Government’s reference to section 61-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, as amended. The Government indicates that, under the section, cadets should be allowed to do night work up to 16 hours per week only in case of watchkeeping. Otherwise, night duty is prohibited, except for that approved by the MOF for educational and training purposes under the MLC, 2006 through the confirmation of employment contracts and rules for work. The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraph 1(f) regarding cadets. It recalls that the only possible exceptions to the prohibition of night work for seafarers under 18 years are provided under Standard A1.1, paragraph 3 of the Convention. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to bring section 92 of the Seafarers’ Act in line with Standard A1.1, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It also requests the Government to clarify the meaning of “easy work” under the same section. With respect to section 61-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, the Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the exception to the night work prohibition for watchkeeping duties complies with Standard A1.1, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee requested the Government to specify whether the list of types of hazardous work provided for in section 8 of the Rules on safety and health of seafarers has been determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the list is also the result of collecting opinions from shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 6. Medical certificate. Nature of medical examination. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to section 53(1)(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Seafarers’ Act (hereinafter, Enforcement Ordinance), the examination on eyesight, colour vision and hearing is only applicable to ship personnel and deck watch-keeping ratings under subparagraph 3 of section 2 of the Ship Officer’s Act. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A1.2 regarding the eyesight and hearing examination of seafarers who are not officers. The Committee notes the Government’s information that virtually all crew members must have their eyesight examined when they are on duty during their shift. With regard to auditory aspects, a hearing assessment for the captain, deck crew, and other ratings is suggested. This provides hearing standards for virtually all crew members. Even with respect to colour recognition, all ship personnel, including the captain, engineer, radio operator, on-deck officers, and ratings, are specified as included. Therefore, all crew members whose hearing, vision, and colour recognition can substantially influence the performance of their duties must meet the minimum criteria following the regulations. The Government further indicates that faithful implementation of the MLC, 2006 is confirmed by medical certificates issued to crew members. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraphs 7 and 9. Medical certificate. Period of validity. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to clarify the meaning of section 54 of the Enforcement Ordinance and to indicate how it complies with the requirements under Standard A1.2, paragraph 9. The Committee notes the Government’s information that pursuant to section 54, where the period of validity of the medical certificate expires on a voyage, the validity of the certificate is prolonged of three months. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 1.3. Qualifications of seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on the circumstances in which it is possible to work on board without completing the appropriate education and training pursuant to section 116(2) of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee notes the Government’s information that pursuant to section 116, under section 44 of the Seafarers’ Act, Korean-flagged ships shall obtain approval for boarding and disembarkation through the competent Regional Office of Oceans and Fisheries, which implies a check on whether crew training has been completed. Therefore, all crew members are obliged to complete training, and the crew is not allowed to embark if the training certificate is not confirmed. The Government further indicates that section 116(2) of the Seafarers’ Act refers to extreme exceptions. As a result, it was used as a basis for recognizing the completion of education and training for seafarers who did not receive refresher training, and is not used in general cases. In particular, according to the MOF, exceptions under section 116(2) are in practice not applied in the process of embarkation and disembarkation, but in the event of a special situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

In relation to the exemptions from the obligation to carry certificated officers on board provided by section 12(1) of the Ship Officer’s Act, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives application to Regulation 1.3, paragraph 1, taking into account that no exceptions are allowed under the Convention. Noting the absence of information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard in its next report.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the national laws and regulations implementing the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) and (c). The Committee notes the Government’s detailed information on legislation giving effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) and (c)(i)-(iv) of the Convention, including the Labour Standards Act, the Seafarers’ Act and the Guidelines for Registration and Management of Ship Management Business. With regard to the implementation of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi), the Committee observes that section 24 of the above-mentioned Guidelines provides that the seafarer management business operator has the duty to establish a financial guarantee for abandonment of seafarers. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi) provides for the establishment of a system of protection to compensate seafarers not only in case of abandonment but “for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi) of the Convention.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 7. Recruitment and placement. Investigation of complaints. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on the procedures applied in the investigation of complaints concerning the activities of recruitment and placement services. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 114 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that the MOF shall immediately investigate a complaint filed by a seafarer in connection with the job placement activities of an agency, a seafarer management business operator, or a marine fisheries-related organization prescribed by Ordinance of the MOF. It also provides that, if necessary, the shipowner and the representative of the seafarer may participate in the investigation. The Government indicates that while there is no detailed procedure for the investigation and treatment of complaints, the MOF, through the seafarer labour supervisory system, operates procedures to settle legal complaints and disputes related to seafarers. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. In relation to the 2018 amendments to the Code, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; (b) how are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and (c) do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislation implementing the requirement of the signature of the seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner (Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a)). The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 27(1) and section 43(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the parties concluding a SEA are “the seafarer” and “the vessel operator”, who conclude a seafarers’ employment agreement through signing or sealing. The Committee notes, however, that the text of the above-mentioned sections, reproduced by the Government, does not mention the requirement of the signature of the SEA by the seafarer and the shipowner. While noting the Government’s indication that, in practice, SEAs are signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner, the Committee recalls that the Convention requires the adoption of legislation prescribing that “seafarers shall have a seafarers’ employment agreement signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner.” The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 6. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Termination. Shorter notice period for urgent reasons. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how Standard A2.1, paragraph 6, is applied. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide new information in this regard. It recalls that, under Standard A2.1, paragraph 6, in determining the circumstances justifying the termination of the employment agreement at shorter notice or without notice, each Member shall ensure that the need of the seafarer to terminate, without penalty, the employment agreement on shorter notice or without notice for compassionate or other urgent reasons, is taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 6.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A2.2, paragraph 5. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 52 of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner shall give seafarers their payslip including details concerning the applied exchange rate; however, most Korean and foreign seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship receive their wages directly in Korean currency or USD without currency exchange, therefore most payslips do not include an exchange rate. The Government further indicates that whether an appropriate payslip is being given to seafarers – including whether the exchange rate is applied at a level not disadvantageous to the seafarer - is monitored through inspections on working and living conditions of seafarers under the Seafarers’ Act. While noting the Government’s information, the Committee recalls that Standard A2.2, paragraph 5 provides a requirement for the service of remittances to seafarers’ families and does not concern the seafarer’s payslip. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to Standard A2.2, paragraph 5 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraph 6. Wages. Due consideration to Guideline B2.2. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous request on the provisions allowing deductions from remuneration, the Government provides detailed information on legislation allowing deductions from seafarers’ wages (e.g. withholding of income tax; health insurance and pension premiums; and wage cuts due to disciplinary action, labour union dues and mutual aid fees established through collective agreement). The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Cadets. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, following the review of the Seafarers’ Act and the Ship Employees Act, the training crews’ rest time is sufficiently guaranteed. It notes that, according to section 61(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance, as amended, training hours shall not exceed eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, provided that where it is for the purpose of navigational watch training, they may be extended by up to 16 hours per week. Rest time every 24 hours shall be at least 8 consecutive hours. Where unavoidable reasons exist, the shipowner may order practical trainees to conduct training or work exceeding practical hours. The Committee notes that such provisions do not fully comply with Standard A2.3, insofar as hours of rest should be not less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period and adequate compensatory rest should be ensured when seafarers have performed work in a scheduled rest period (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 5(b), 8 and 14). The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraph 1(f) regarding cadets. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraphs 5(b), 8 and 14 of the Convention with regard to cadets.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 6 and 13. Hours of work and hours of rest. Division of hours of rest. Exceptions. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the legislation (section 60(4) of the Seafarers’ Act and section 39-5(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance) allowing for a deviation from standards for division of the hours of rest through collective agreement. It noted, in particular, that under section 39-5(2) of the Enforcement Ordinance, hours of rest may be divided into a maximum of up to three separate times. It further noted that the copy of collective agreement provided by the Government provides that the rest period may be divided into four separate periods. Noting that the collective agreement was not in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to explain how the requirements of Standard A2.3 are enforced. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the term “three separate times” specified in section 39-5, paragraph 2(3) of the Enforcement Ordinance was established to divide break time three times into four separate periods, which is in line with the “four separate periods” specified in the above-mentioned collective agreement. Therefore, such collective agreement is considered to be fulfilling the requirements of the Seafarers’ Act. The Government further indicates that compliance with the requirements of Standard A2.3 is examined through the maritime labour certification inspection in accordance with sections 137 and 138 of the Seafarers’ Act. Moreover, if a seafarer reports a violation of the requirement to the competent authorities, an investigation of the alleged violation will be carried out within 25 days. While noting the Government’s information, the Committee refers to its previous comments and reiterates its concern that a period of a minimum of ten hours of rest divided in up to four separate periods, two of which of possibly just one hour, clearly poses the problem of the fatigue of seafarers and its consequences. The Committee also recalls that exceptions under Standard A2.3, paragraph 13 shall, as far as possible, follow the provision of the Standard “but may take account of more frequent or longer leave periods or the granting of compensatory leave for watchkeeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ships on short voyages”. The Committee requests again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraphs 6 and 13.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 8. Hours of work and hours of rest. On-call work. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislative or regulatory provisions implementing the requirements under Standard A2.3, paragraph 8 relating to compensatory rest period for on call work. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 60(7) of the Seafarers’ Act, a shipowner shall provide an adequate period of rest in compensation for and corresponding to hours of work to a seafarer who did necessary work despite being during rest time or a seafarer who did not take the normal rest because he/she was called out to work during the hours of rest pursuant to paragraph (6). The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 10. Hours of work and hours of rest. Shipboard working arrangements. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A2.3, paragraph 10 (requirement of posting of shipboard working arrangements). The Committee notes that while the Government has supplied copy of the table of shipboard working arrangements, it provides no information on the requirement to post such table in an easily accessible place as provided by Standard A2.3, paragraph 10. It requests the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 10.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 62(4) of the Seafarers’ Act, which provides that a seafarer may request that a shipowner or master provide a copy of records of hours of work and hours of rest and overtime pertaining to him/her, is not in conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraph 12 providing that seafarers shall receive a copy of the records pertaining to them. Noting that section 62(4) of the Seafarers’ Act has not been amended, the Committee refers to its previous comments and requests the Government to bring the Seafarers’ Act in line with Standard A2.3, paragraph 12 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b). Repatriation. Maximum period of service on board. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 69 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that, after eight consecutive months of work on board, the shipowner must grant leave within four months, with the possibility of postponing it until the end of the current voyage. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how it ensures, in practice, that the seafarers’ maximum period of service on board is less than 12 months. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 69(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, if a crew member continues to be on board for eight months, paid leave (if sailing, this can be delayed until the end of the voyage) shall be given within four months from the last day of the 8-month period. The Government specifies that most seafarers are granted paid leave within 12 months after boarding the ship; however, recently, due to COVID-19 pandemic, crew changes have been restricted. With the consent of the crew concerned, some crew members have disembarked after 12 months based on the ship’s sailing schedule. The Government points out that in future, once the COVID-19 pandemic has been brought under control, it will consult with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations to devise a reasonable improvement plan so that the maximum practical period on board for all seafarers is less than 12 months. The Committee recalls that it considers that, from the combined reading of Standard A2.4, paragraphs 2 and 3, on annual leave and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), the maximum continuous period of shipboard service is in principle 11 months. The Committee also recalls that in its 2020 General Observation it considered that the extreme fatigue of seafarers who have been on board beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board not only constitutes a situation clearly hazardous for the safety and health of the seafarers concerned, but also profoundly endangers the safety of navigation in general. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring the Seafarers’ Act in full compliance with Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), as well as to ensure that in practice seafarers on board Korean-flagged ships are not requested to continue working beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board derived from the provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee previously noted that section 38(2) of the Seafarers’ Act provides that a shipowner may claim repatriation expenses from the seafarer in certain circumstances. It requested the Government to provide information on: (i) what would be considered a “justifiable reason” under section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act; (ii) the extent of section 38(2)(3); (iii) examples of “reasons” found in collective agreements or seafarers’ employment agreements that could justify the shipowner’s right to recover repatriation costs; and (iv) the procedure under which the seafarer is found to fall within the abovementioned exceptions. With respect to section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Committee notes the Government’s information that, while the Seafarers’ Act does not define what is “a justifiable reason”, it is considered a circumstance where there is no wilful misconduct or gross negligence, such as: (i) cancelling the employment agreement due to discrepancies of working conditions with the agreement; (ii) when a seafarer is not able to carry out his or her duty due to an injury or disease that occurred on the ship, unintentionally, or (iii) when the ship is sold to a different shipowner. With regard to section 38(2)(3) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Government clarifies that, in collective agreements and seafarer’s employment agreements, standards established in the Seafarers’ Act are applied mutatis mutandis and no other cases are specified separately. As to the procedure under which it is found that the seafarer falls within the abovementioned exceptions, the Government refers to the complaint procedure brought by the seafarer for the violation of the requirements of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the burden and standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers’ employment obligations” pursuant to section 38(2)(1) of the Seafarers’ Act.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7. Repatriation. Financial security. Documentary evidence. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed information in relation to the application of the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention (Standard A2.5.2). Concerning Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7, the Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 151-1(2) of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner must post in a conspicuous place on the ship the name and contact information of the repatriation insurance company and the duration of the repatriation insurance. It notes however that section 58-11 of the Enforcement Ordinance (scope of the documents to be posted in the ship) lists only part of the information requested under Appendix A2-I. The Committee requests the Government to specify how it ensures full compliance with Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7 and Appendix A2-I.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9. Repatriation. Financial security. Coverage. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether national legislation requires that the financial security system is sufficient to cover the items provided under Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 42-2 of the Seafarers’ Act, repatriation insurance shall guarantee the payment expenses for repatriation, repatriation allowances (defined under section 39 of the Act), as well as expenses incurred in providing goods or services necessary for living on a ship (including food and water, fuel and medical support necessary for survival). The Committee recalls that assistance provided by the financial security system shall also cover outstanding wages and other entitlements due under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective agreements and legislation, limited to four months (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(a)). It also recalls that the system covers the essential needs of the seafarer until the seafarer’s arrival at home (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(c)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to comply with Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9(a) and (c).

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(a)–(f). Accommodation and recreational facilities. General requirements. Headroom. Location of sleeping rooms. In its previous comments, the Committee noted various inconsistencies between sections 19 et seq. of the Notice on ship facilities and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(a)–(d) and (f). It requested the Government to provide detailed explanations on the exemptions under the Notice and to review it to ensure conformity with the requirements of Standard A3.1. The Committee notes with interest the following information provided by the Government in reply to its comments: (i) section 21 of the Notice on ship facilities has been amended to allow exemptions (reduction of headspace to 180 cm) only for “ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages but with a navigational area of less than the coastal waters”; and (ii) sections 19 and 22 of the Notice on ship facilities (on location of accommodation spaces, including sleeping rooms) have been amended to extend their application to ships of “more than 200 gross tonnage engaged in or beyond coastal waters and ships engaged in international voyages”. The Committee finally notes the Government’s reference to section 24 of the Notice on ship facilities, which gives application to Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(f) and Guideline B3.1.1. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 44 of the Notice on ship facilities (insulation) “has been amended to exempt ships navigating in territorial waters”. The Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5 and requests the Government to ensure that Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(b) is applied to all ships covered by the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(h). Accommodation and recreational facilities. General requirements. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that it implements Standard A3.1, paragraph 6(h) through clause 4 of section 2 of the Rules on Safety and Health for Seafarers. Under the cited section, a shipowner in order to prevent danger of work on a ship and maintain hygiene shall provide, inter alia, for “installation facilities necessary to maintain an appropriate level of hygiene such as ventilation, skylights and lighting in accommodation, engine rooms and galleys, etc., maintenance of temperature, and prevention of noise and vibration.” The Government further indicates that sections 941 to 971, Part 8, of the Structural Standards of Steel Ships deal with noise. In addition, sections 82 to 91, Chapter 8, of the Safety, Health and Accident Prevention Standards - to be promulgated in 2021 – deal with vibration and sections 92 to 105 deal with noise. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraphs 7 and 9. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Ventilation and heating. Sleeping rooms. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its comments, that the exemption requirements in sections 32 (Installation of Bathroom and Laundry, etc.) and 45 (Heating and Air Conditioning System) of the Notice on ship facilities are established or amended through consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 8. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Lighting. The Committee, noting that section 46 of the Notice on ship facilities provides for an exemption regarding lighting requirements not allowed under the Convention, requested the Government to amend it in order to comply fully with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 46(1) of the Notice on ship facilities refers to passengers’ rooms and not to seafarers’ rooms. The Government also indicates that section 46(2) was amended in order not to allow for exceptions. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 9. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sleeping rooms. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the exception provided by paragraph 3 of table 6 of the Enforcement Ordinance (standards for computation of number of maximum passengers) for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage was not in line with the Convention and requested the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in order for the exemption to be applied to ships not covered by the MLC, 2006, paragraph 3, table 6 of the Enforcement Ordinance will be amended to cover ships with a gross tonnage of 200 tons or more and navigating in territorial waters. Referring to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate which provision requires, in accordance with Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(b), that a separate sleeping room be provided for men and women seafarers. Noting that the Government provides no information in this regard, the Committee requests it to supply such information in its next report.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 10. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Mess rooms. The Committee previously noted that section 29 of the Notice on ship facilities provides for exclusions and exemptions, which are not in conformity with the Convention. It requested the Government to indicate how it respects the criteria allowing exemptions to Standard A3.1, paragraph 10. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 29(1) of the Notice on ship facilities, which only applied to ships of more than 500 gross tonnage engaging beyond coastal waters, was amended to extend its scope of application to “all ships of 200 gross tonnage and above and engaging beyond coastal waters and all ships engaged in international voyages.” It also notes, however, that the same section provides that “exemptions shall be made for passenger ships engaged in short voyages and ships of less than 500 gross tonnage which navigate exclusively in territorial waters”. The Government clarifies that “passenger ships engaged in short voyages” are “passenger ships which navigate for less than six hours and which are not used for crew accommodation” and that it is difficult to install mess rooms in small ships (less than 500 gross tonnage). Regarding ships navigating in territorial waters, the Committee refers to its comments under Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 5. The Committee also recalls that Standard A3.1, paragraph 10(a) of the Convention only allows the exemption of ships of less than 3,000 GT from the requirement of the location of mess rooms. The Committee requests the Government to bring its legislation in full conformity with Standard A3.1, paragraph 10.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous comments that section 29(1)(1)(c) of the Notice on ship facilities was amended to remove exemptions regarding sufficient refrigerator capacity and a hot/cold drinking water system for ships other than ships of 1,000 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 11. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sanitary facilities. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request, the Government indicates that section 31 of the Notice on ship facilities is related to requirements for passengers who are on board passenger ships, not seafarers. The Committee further notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous comments that section 32(1) of the above-mentioned Notice has been amended to provide that the requirement on the number of sanitary facilities may be alleviated in case of a “sailing vessel, public vessel, and passenger ship with not more than four hours of navigation”. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities only applies to “ships of 500 gross tons and over engaged in or beyond coastal waters”. It requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the requirements of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c) are implemented in ships of less than 500 gross tons. The Committee notes the Government's information that section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities was amended to extend its application to “all ships of 200 gross tonnage and above and engaging beyond coastal waters and all ships engaged in international voyages.” As a result and pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6, ships of less than 200 gross tonnage with a navigational area of less than the coastal waters are excluded from the application of the requirement of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c), considering the difficulty to install sanitary facilities on small ships. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the requirement of Standard A3.1, paragraph 11(c) (sanitary facilities for every six persons) is regulated by legislation or collective agreements in relation to ships, which are excluded from the scope of section 32(1) of the Notice on ship facilities.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 12. Hospital accommodation. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its comments, that section 30 was amended to provide for possible exemptions only for sailing boats and state-owned ships. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 2(c), 3 and 4. Qualifications of catering staff. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous request that the exemption under section 76(6) of the Seafarers’ Act (detailed under section 22-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Seafarers’ Act) concern ships which are non-seagoing vessels, ships with a complement of fewer than 10 seafarers, and fishing boats. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1. Medical care on board and ashore. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 84 and 85 of the Seafarers’ Act, while reproducing respectively the requirements of Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) and (c), provide for exceptions which are not allowed under the Convention. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to fully implement the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in practice the exemption under section 84 (medical doctor on board) has not been used. The Government further indicates that a revision of the relevant regulations is expected. With regard to section 85 (persons in charge of medical service), the Government indicates that it is in line with the Convention. The Committee observes once again that section 85 of the Seafarers’ Act provides for exceptions which are not allowed under Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c), insofar as it: (i) does not apply to “cases prescribed by the Enforcement Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries”; (ii) is limited to ships with a gross tonnage of more than 5,000 tons navigating in ocean waters; and (iii) provides for an exemption to the requirement concerning qualification where a shipowner obtains approval from the competent authorities owing to extenuating circumstances. The Committee requests again the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) and (c).

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4. Shipowners’ liability. Limits. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend sections 94 and 96 of the Seafarers’ Act in order to ensure that the period of shipowners’ liability is not less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Seafarers’ Act distinguishes occupational injury/sickness from injury/sickness due to a cause other than from service on a ship. For an occupational injury/sickness, medical treatment is given at the shipowner’s expense until the injury/sickness is treated. The shipowner shall pay sickness compensation in an amount equivalent to 100 per cent of ordinary wages during four months, and after an amount equivalent to 70 per cent of ordinary wages shall be paid. According to the Government, ensuring injury/sickness compensation for up to three months for causes other than from service on a ship is a special protection system to enhance the shipowner’s responsibility despite the injury/sickness not being occupational. The Government further indicates that the requirement of the liability period of a shipowner to be “at least 16 weeks from the date of the injury/sickness” is not mandatory and should be applied only to occupational injury/sickness. The Committee recalls that Regulation 4.2 applies to sickness, injury and death occurring while seafarers “are serving under a seafarers’ employment agreement or arising from their employment under such agreement”. Therefore, the Regulation applies to both occupational and non-occupational sickness/injury. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 5 allows for national legislation to exclude shipowner’s liability in respect of injury incurred otherwise than in the service of the ship, but no illness. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 94 and 96 of the Seafarers’ Act in full conformity with Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4 in order to ensure that, with regard to non-occupational sickness and injury, the period of shipowners’ liability is not less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1(b) and 8 and Standard A4.2.2, paragraph 2. Shipowner’s liability. Financial security. Form and consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 106 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that “a shipowner shall buy insurance policies or join mutual aids, both of which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, so that he/she fully covers accident compensation described herein for all seafarers aboard a relevant ship of his or hers”. It further notes the Government’s information that the Seafarers’ Act requires shipowners to provide financial security in order to assure compensation in the event of death or long-term disability, as well as injury or sickness of seafarers due to an occupational accident. Oceangoing shipowners buy usually a P&I insurance and domestic shipping owners usually join Korea Shipping Association mutual aids. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation implementing the detailed requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 8.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 11 and 14. Shipowner’s liability. Financial security. Documentary evidence. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions requiring that ships to be certified pursuant to Regulation 5.1.3 carry on board documentary evidence of financial security. The Committee notes the Government’s information that under section 151-1(4) of the Seafarers’ Act, the shipowner must post in a conspicuous place on the ship “documents describing whether accident compensation insurance, etc. has been purchased, the procedures for claiming and paying insurance money, and other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries”. The Committee notes that section 58-11 of the Enforcement Ordinance referred to by the Government (scope of the documents to be posted in the ship) does not contain all the information listed under Appendix A4-I. The Committee requests the Government to specify how it ensures full compliance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14 and Appendix A4-I.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Ship’s safety committee. The Committee previously noted that section 4(1) of the Rules on the safety and health for seafarers provides that “a master may be in charge of safety in case of a ship the number of which is less than 10 persons”. It requested the Government to indicate if safety committees must be established on all ships with five or more seafarers and, if not, to amend its legislation in order to ensure full conformity with Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). The Committee notes the Government’s information that the inspection for certification under section 137 of the Seafarers’ Act requires the confirmation of whether the onboard safety committee has been formed according to the MLC, 2006. The Government further indicates that work is in progress to establish Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards as a Notification of the MOF. According to such standards, ships with more than five crew members are required to form an onboard safety committee consisting of the captain, chief engineer, safety management officer, safety management representative, and medical service officer. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the adoption of the Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards and to provide a copy of it as soon as it is available.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 8. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Risk evaluation. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements the obligation provided for under Standard A4.3, paragraph 8. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the inspection for certification pursuant to the Seafarers’ Act requires the confirmation of the implementation of the risk assessment requirement. The Government further indicates that section 46 of the Maritime Safety Act provides that shipowners must establish and implement a management system for safe ship operations including establishing safeguards against all identified hazards. The Government adds that the Onboard Health and Safety and Accident Prevention Standards - that are currently being established - stipulate that shipowners should conduct an annual evaluation of onboard health and safety risks. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in giving full application to Standard A4.3, paragraph 8 of the Convention.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures the implementation of Standard A4.5, paragraph 3 to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory, regardless of their nationality. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the National Health Insurance Act, the National Pension Act, and the Employment Insurance Act are applied to all seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship. However, considering that the visa or contract period is limited for a foreign seafarer, insurance is stipulated in a form of voluntary subscription according to the seafarer’s will. The Committee notes that under section 109(2) of the National Health Insurance Act, foreigners resident in the Republic of Korea are employee-insured if they fill certain requirements, e.g. registration pursuant to the Resident Registration Act. It also notes that section 126 of the National Pension Act provides that a foreigner employed in a workplace governed by this Act who resides in the Republic of Korea, other than a person prescribed by Presidential Decree “shall be a workplace-based insured person or individually insured person”. The Committee further notes that the Employment Insurance Act also applies to a foreign worker who holds “a status of residency” (section 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act). The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 6. Social security. Comparable benefits to seafarers in the absence of adequate coverage. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that all seafarers boarding a Korean-flagged ship can receive social security according to Korean law. Accordingly, section 20 of the Enforcement Ordinance provides that the seafarer employment agreement should include details on the protection of health and social security. However, seafarers without residency in Korea who board and leave from ports abroad, due to the limitation of a seafarer’s contract, return to their home country after the termination of the contract. In this case, the social security provided by the Republic of Korea such as health insurance can only be received in Korean territory, providing no benefits for a non-resident seafarer. The Government clarifies that non-resident seafarers can apply for insurance, but even though they pay the insurance premium, in practice they will receive no benefits. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development aimed at ensuring comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers working on board Korean-flagged ships.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Intervals of inspection. The Committee notes that in reply to its request on the scope of section 123(1) of the Seafarers’ Act, the Government indicates that ships subject to the application of the Convention are periodically inspected within three years pursuant to section 137 of the Seafarers’ Act and the remaining ships are subject to inspection under section 123 of the Act. The exemption provided by section 123(1) is to avoid that a ship inspected through section 137 is re-inspected through section 123. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 6. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Independence of inspectors. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that the Seafarer Labour Supervisor shall be appointed by the MOF or the head of each local government from among the public officials of the Ministry. The public officials of the Republic of Korea shall maintain political neutrality in accordance with the State Public Officials Act and section 65 of the National Public Officials Act. In addition, the Seafarer Labour Supervisor shall perform his/her duties fairly and independently pursuant to section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5. Flag State responsibilities. Investigation and remedy. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that the Seafarer Labour Inspector shall confirm compliance with the MLC, 2006 in accordance with the Seafarer Labour Inspector’s Duties Rules, and the implementation guide shall be used for reference. The Committee takes note of the table provided by the Government describing the complaint process. It further notes the Government’s information that, in accordance with section 5 of the Seafarer Labour Inspector’s Duties Rule, upon receipt of a complaint on board, the inspector shall investigate without delay and listen to the statements of the shipowner and seafarers. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10. Flag State responsibilities. Confidentiality of sources of grievances or complaints. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that measures to maintain the confidentiality of persons receiving complaints and grievances in accordance with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 10 are specified in section 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, section 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act and section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act. Section 128 of the Seafarers’ Act provides that Seafarers’ Labour Supervisors shall not divulge confidential information they had access to while performing duties. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. Reporting on inspections. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify how it is ensured that a copy of the inspection report is posted on the ship’s noticeboard as required by Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12. The Committee notes the Government’s information that when an inspection is carried out pursuant to sections 136 and 138 of the Seafarers’ Act, the Maritime Labour Certificate shall be issued with the inspection details, and a copy of the issued certificate shall be posted in a clearly visible place on board. The Committee recalls that according to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12, the copy of the report of each inspection shall be posted on the ship’s noticeboard for the information of the seafarers and, upon request, sent to their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12 of the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KCTU communicated with the Government’s supplementary information, as well as the comments of the Government on those observations.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislation. The Committee recalls that section 8(1) of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act (previously referred to as the “Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work–Family Reconciliation”) only provides for equal wages for work of equal value “in the same business” and that the Equal Treatment Regulation (No. 422) limits the possibility of comparing work performed by men and women to “work of a similar nature”. In its last comment, in light of the persistent and high gender pay gap, the Committee urged the Government once again to take the necessary steps to bring the above-mentioned Act and Regulation into full conformity with the Convention. It also asked the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the gender pay gap. In its report, the Government recalls that: (1) since its enactment in 1997, the Regulations on Handling Work related to Equal Employment Opportunity (No. 117) have specified that two jobs which are somewhat different but are recognized as of equal value in essence according to job evaluation constitute “work of equal value”; (2) in 2013, the concept of “work of similar value” was added to the Regulations to provide a clearer standard for equal pay for work of equal value (according to article 4.1 of these Regulations, work of equal value refers to comparable jobs done by men and women which are of “equal or similar” value in terms of required skills, efforts, responsibilities, working conditions, etc.); and that (3) additionally, in 2019, the scope of application of the “provision on prohibition of wage discrimination on grounds of gender” was expanded from workplaces with five employees and more to all workplaces.

The Committee notes that, on 14 March 2019, the Korean Supreme Court held that there must be no “unreasonable” discriminatory treatment based on other circumstances that are not related to work, as well as a prohibition on wage discrimination based on social status or gender under the Labour Standards Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act (Case 2015 Du 46321). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that paying different lecture fees to full-time lecturers and to part-time lecturers constitutes “unreasonable” discrimination for a circumstance that is not related to work, and is in violation of the principles of “equal treatment and equal pay for equal work”, and thus, are invalid. While welcoming this decision, the Committee notes that the principle of equal pay for equal work upheld by the Court is narrower than the principle laid down in the Convention, as it does not give expression to the concept of equal pay for work of equal “value”, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. While noting the various initiatives undertaken by the Government to promote the principle of equal remuneration between men and women workers and to reduce occupational segregation, the Committee wishes to point out that, where legislation forms part of a comprehensive approach toward the elimination of gender-based salary discrimination, it is crucial that such legislation be effective and ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that its legal framework does not only provide for equal remuneration for equal, the same or similar work, but also address situations where men and women perform different work that is nevertheless of equal value, so as not to hinder progress in eradicating gender-based pay discrimination. In this regard, it asks the Government to provide an updated list of the provisions (legislative, regulatory or otherwise) implementing the principle of the Convention, that is to say ensuring that: (i) men and women receive equal remuneration for work of equal “value”; and (ii) the scope of comparison between men and women extends beyond the same establishment or enterprise.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KCTU communicated with the Government’s supplementary information, as well as the comments of the Government on those observations.

Article 2 of the Convention. Practical measures to address the gender pay gap and its underlying causes. In its previous request, the Committee asked the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken or envisaged to identify and address the causes of the gender pay gap, and on the results achieved in this regard, both in the public and private sectors. In its report, the Government reiterates that job segregation in the labour market and career interruption during childbirth and childcare periods are the major reasons for the gender pay gap (on average, women with career interruptions earn 14.7 per cent less than women without such interruptions). It indicates that consequently it has taken measures to ease the burden for both male and female workers with family responsibilities and prevent career interruption for women (for example childcare leave benefits increased, greater incentive for paternity leave, childcare facilities expanded, taking greater account of gender perspective in designing transport connectivity, etc.). In this regard, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). The Government recalls that companies subject to the Affirmative Action legislation enacted in 2006 (that is, companies with levels of female representation lower than the legal standard of 60 per cent of average female share in the industry) are required to set goals voluntarily to improve the employment of women. The Government indicates that, previously, only employers with low performance in affirmative action were requested to submit information on the gender pay gap as well as a plan for addressing such gap. As of 2020, this requirement is expanded to all employers. Every year, the Government publishes a list of employers that have made poor or insufficient efforts towards affirmative action. On 1 September 2020, 51 private enterprises and one public institution were named publicly. In reply to the KCTU’s observation that, as there are practically no penalties or incentives for employers who are not required to adopt measures, this system has little effect on the actual pay gap, the Government points out that it mandates all employers with affirmative action measures to submit a report on the gender pay gap in their business and to analyze the reasons for the gap. The Government concludes that this encourages businesses to improve voluntarily the gender pay gap and strengthens the effectiveness of the system. The Government emphasizes that, since 2012, the gender pay gap has been declining and that, according to the 2019 joint report from the ILO and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) “Women at Work in G20 countries: Progress and policy action”, the decline of the gender gap in the labour participation force was greater than expected in the Republic of Korea. The Government pledges to continue to implement measures to promote women’s employment, strengthening support to ensure a continuous improvement in the gender pay gap.

The Committee notes the FKTU’s and KCTU’s observations pointing out that the Republic of Korea is the OECD Member with the largest gender wage gap. According to OECD data, whereas the average gender wage gap among its Members was 13 for 2018, it stood at 34.1 for the Republic of Korea, that is 10.6 points above the country with the second highest gap. For 2019, the OECD data shows that the gender pay gap for Korea decreased to 32.5. It also notes that, according to the OECD report, the gender gap in earnings and in the incidence of low pay are partly explained by gender segregation by occupation, with women more concentrated into lower paying occupations than men. In contrast, the proportion of women in higher paying occupations, such as managers, remains low in all G20 economies, with especially low figures for the Republic of Korea, as women accounted for only around 15 per cent of all managerial jobs in 2018. In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to the FKTU’s observations on pay transparency, that it is considering implementing a wage disclosure system (requiring the release of wage information by gender, employment type, occupation, etc.) after consultation with the social partners and relevant governmental offices. Finally, the Committees notes the KCTU’s observations that the main factors contributing to the gender wage gap are: (1) gender segregation and discrimination in job classification, especially in the finance sector; (2) discrimination in promotion; (3) refusal to disclose wage structures; (4) underestimation of women’s jobs; and (5) employment of women as non-regular workers. In light of the persistent gender wage gap and occupational gender segregation of the labour market, the Committee asks the Government: (i) to step up its efforts to address effectively the existing gender wage gap and more generally to achieve gender equality in employment and occupation; (ii) to continue providing information on all measures taken or envisaged to address the root causes of the gender pay gap, and the results achieved by these measures in the public and private sectors; (iii) to provide information on the progress made towards the adoption of a wage disclosure system and the results obtained; and (iv) to provide information on any assessment carried out of the impact of the Affirmative Action legislation in addressing the gender pay gap.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation and its application in job-based wage systems. The Committee recalls that, since in the Republic of Korea salaries tend to be based on years of service to a given company (annual salary system), there is still some difficulty in understanding the concept of equal value, hence its previous request for information on the measures taken to improve understanding of the concept of work of equal value among workers and employers and their organizations, in particular in enterprises that have adopted or wish to adopt an annual salary system and to promote the use of objective job evaluation methods in this context. The Committee notes the Government’s undertaking that it will continue to build a wage infrastructure for equal pay for work of equal value by developing job evaluation tools in eight sectors of the economy (including banking, healthcare, information technology, pharmaceuticals and steel) and collecting wage information by business size, sector, occupation and position. It also notes the Government’s indication that, in 2019, the “Workplace Innovation Consulting program” helped 789 enterprises in reforming and improving their wage and job evaluation systems. It further notes that, in order to support businesses’ voluntary efforts to address existing gender pay gap and raise awareness, the Government produced and distributed in 2018 a publication entitled “Equal Pay Makes Gender Equality at Work!” as well as “Guidelines for Implementation of Equal Pay” and, in January 2020, distributed a “Guideline on job-based personnel management” which includes information on how to reform wage system and best practices, job analysis and evaluation methods to introduce a human resources management system based on job responsibility and methods to simplify wage composition. The Government adds that there are continuous discussions with the social partners in the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESCL) and industry-specific committees regarding the job-based wage system. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the understanding and implementation of the concept of work of equal value by the employers, workers and their organizations. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information, including statistics, on the number of enterprises that have adopted performance-based pay systems and carried-out objective job evaluations, particularly in the eight sectors of the economy identified above and also in sectors in which women are predominantly employed. In this regard, it asks the Government to indicate the measures put in place to ensure that job evaluation and the remuneration process are carried out in a gender-inclusive way to ensure that performance pay systems not only do not discriminate against women, but also achieve the purpose of improved organizational performance, in both the public and the private sectors.

Enforcement. Labour inspection. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) step up its efforts to improve the enforcement of the equal pay legislation; (2) provide information on the preventive and enforcement activities of labour inspectors, specifically targeting equality and equal remuneration; and (3) examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions in force allow claims for unequal remuneration between men and women workers to be brought successfully. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, notably that it offers, every year, a training course to labour inspectors, entitled “Understanding the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance System” and is planning to train labour inspectors on different types of workplace gender discrimination, including wage inequality, and how to prevent them. As regards enforcement, the Government indicates that, in 2018: (1) 25,000 workplaces were the subject of investigations by labour inspectors following allegations of wage discrimination; and (2) an anonymous gender discrimination reporting centre was created to facilitate the filing of claims, including against wage inequality. In addition, the Government indicates that it is in the process of amending relevant laws in order to introduce remedy procedures against gender discrimination and allow the National Labour Commission to handle allegations of gender discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to reinforce the capacity of labour inspectors to prevent gender pay discrimination and enforce the principle of the Convention. More specifically, it requests the Government to provide information on any legislative developments aiming to facilitate the filing and treatment of claims. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the results of 25,000 inspections carried out, in particular the proportion of such violations related to gender pay inequalities, the number of women workers concerned and the imposition of any civil penalties.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KCTU and the KEF, communicated with the Government’s supplementary information, as well as the comments of the Government on those observations.

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. Schoolteachers. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comment, it stated that, insofar as political activities undertaken by elementary, primary and secondary school teachers are held outside of the school establishment and are unrelated to teaching, a general prohibition of political activities does not constitute an inherent requirement within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Convention and concluded that disciplinary measures against teachers who engage in such activities constitute discrimination on the ground of political opinion, contrary to the Convention. Consequently, it urged the Government to take immediate steps to ensure that elementary, primary and secondary school teachers enjoy protection against discrimination based on political opinion in conformity with the Convention, as well as measures to ensure that teachers are not subject to disciplinary measures for such reasons. The Committee notes that, once again, the Government recalls that the Korean Constitution guarantees the political neutrality of elementary, primary and secondary education and refers to decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2012 and 2014 in this regard and to its decision of 23 April 2020 maintaining that the prohibition of elementary, primary and secondary teachers to join any political party or other political organization (according to article 65.1 of the State Public Officials Act) is constitutional. The Committee cannot but reiterate that, although in certain circumstances restrictions with respect to political opinion might constitute a bona fide qualification for certain posts (an inherent requirement of the job), it is essential that such restrictions are not carried beyond certain limits. This is because such practices may come into conflict with the Convention’s provisions that require the implementation of a policy designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of political opinion, in particular in respect of public employment (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 831). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a number of amendment bills to guarantee public officials’ and teachers’ political freedom, such as political party membership and the right to participate in election campaigns, are pending before the National Assembly. The Committee also notes the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the Committee’s requests are discussed. In this regard, the Committee notes the KCTU’s observations that bills introduced in 2017 to reform the State Public Officials Act (SPOA), the Local Public Officials Act (LPOA) and the Public Official Election Act (POEA) are still pending before the competent standing committee, despite recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea that these laws be amended. Recalling that the protection of opinions which are neither expressed nor demonstrated would be futile, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of these amendments. It urges the Government to take concrete steps to ensure that schoolteachers enjoy protection against discrimination based on political opinion, as provided for in the Convention.

Inherent requirements of the job. Political opinion and public officials. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) consider limiting the prohibition of political activities to certain positions and therefore consider the possibility of adopting a list of jobs in the public service for which political opinion would be an inherent requirement; and (2) in the meantime, provide information on the practical application of section 65(1) of the State Public Officials Act. The Committee notes the Government’s acknowledgment that the freedom of civil servants in terms of their expression of political opinion and activities is limited in accordance with article 7 of the Constitution which provides that: “(1) all public officials shall be servants of the entire people and shall be responsible to the people; and (2) the status and political impartiality of public officials shall be guaranteed”. It adds that this should be understood with the purpose of the career civil service system in mind, whereby public officials are recruited based on required qualifications for a certain grade and not with a specific position in view. It is only at a later stage that specific tasks and positions are allocated. The Government argues that, due to this specific characteristic of the Korean career civil service, it would be difficult to identify in advance and list the specific tasks which could be subject to limitations regarding political activities and opinion. It adds, however, that it fully understands the need for guaranteeing greater freedom of political expression to public officials and commits, when the National Assembly starts the process of revising the relevant legislation in the future, to support actively this process in order to ensure that an in-depth discussion takes place. In the supplementary information provided, the Government refers to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 23 April 2020 which ruled that the prohibition on forming or joining a political party was constitutional “as it is designed to ensure political neutrality of their service as servants to all citizens” but considered that the prohibition on forming or joining “any other political organization” was unconstitutional because it was too ambiguous. In this regard, the Government states that it will amend the State Public Officials Act in order to ensure clarity and the political neutrality of public officials. With regard to the practical application of the SPOA, the Government states that, among public officials who faced disciplinary action for violating section 65(1) over the period 2015–19, no official in general service (including teachers) has been the subject to disciplinary action for violating the prohibition of political party membership. The Committee notes, however, the KCTU’s observation that teachers were indicted in 2015 and 2017 for the alleged violation of section 66 of the SPOA which prohibits public officials from engaging in any collective activity for any labour campaign or activities other than public services; and that these cases are still pending in court. It adds that several trade unions have requested that the provisions in several acts which excessively restrict the right of political activities of public officials be revised. The Committee wishes to recall that, in cases in which one of the criteria cited by the Convention is taken into consideration in determining the inherent requirements of a job, an objective reappraisal should be made in order to determine whether these prerequisites are really justified by the requirements of the job. Consequently, it cannot but reiterate that political opinion may be taken into consideration as a prerequisite justified by the inherent requirements of a given job, only if this restriction applies to a narrow range of jobs and not for the entire public sector. The Committee asks the Government, once again, to consider limiting the prohibition of political activities to certain positions and therefore to consider the possibility of adopting, in the near future, a list of jobs in the public service for which political opinion would be considered an inherent requirement. It asks the Government to provide information on any developments made in this regard, including before the National Assembly.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KCTU and the KEF, communicated with the Government’s supplementary information, as well as the comments of the Government on those observations.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against discrimination. Legislation and practical measures. In its previous comment, the Committee, noting the lack of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, urged the Government to introduce provisions covering, as a minimum, all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, namely race, colour, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. It also asked the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to fight against discrimination, to raise awareness and to promote tolerance and respect among the population. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, under the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act, anyone subjected to discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, disability, age, social status, region of origin, state of origin, ethnic origin, physical condition, marital status, pregnancy or childbirth, types or forms of family, race, skin colour, ideology or political opinion, record of crime whose effect of punishment has been extinguished, sexual orientation, academic career, and medical history, can file a complaint with the Commission which may recommend a remedy, system improvement, disciplinary action or other action. In this regard, the Committee notes that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) is not a judicial body and can only make recommendations. It also notes that the number of petitions alleging discrimination filed with the NHRCK has dropped from 3,152 in 2017 to 2,185 in 2018 (a decrease of 30.7 per cent for discrimination in general and of 24 per cent for discrimination in employment over the same period) and that, since the establishment of the NHRCK in 2001, discrimination concerning employment, dismissal, and wages is the second most important subject of petitions, representing 29 per cent of all petitions filed. The Government emphasizes that one of the tasks listed in the Third National Action Plan for Human Rights (2018–2022) is “finding ways to establish a framework act on anti-discrimination” and that a legislative proposal for an Anti-Discrimination Act was submitted to the National Assembly on 29 June 2020. The proposed text prohibits direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on 23 grounds, including race, gender, religion, political views and place of birth. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that, where legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. It notes the KEF’s observations questioning the necessity of such general anti-discrimination legislation. It also notes the KCTU’s statement indicating that the NHRCK, in a resolution adopted on 30 June 2020, urged the Government to establish the Anti-Discrimination Act. The KCTU considers that the proposed bill falls short of the remedies included in the recommendations made by the NHRCK in 2006 (especially on the authority of the NHRCK to issue corrective orders). Regarding awareness-raising measures to fight discrimination, the Committee notes that the NHRCK has set up education programmes to raise awareness on discrimination, including online, which have reached 340,000 persons in 2018 (from 249,428 in 2017). Government programmes have provided education on multiculturalism to 120,000 persons in 2018 and a public survey, carried out every three years, reveals that, in April 2019, the level of acceptance of multiculturalism was at 52.8 points among adults and 71.2 points among teenagers. The Government indicates that it plans to produce a case book on discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to: (i) keep it informed of the progress towards the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Act, ensuring that the provisions of this Act cover, as a minimum, all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, and provide a copy once adopted; (ii) continue to provide information on measures taken to fight discrimination in practice, as well as to raise awareness of these issues among the population; and (iii) communicate information on the results of the next survey regarding acceptance of multiculturalism among the population, including statistics and any follow-up given to the results of the said survey.

Harassment at work. The Committee notes that, in its observations communicated with the Government’s supplementary information on 30 October 2020, the KCTU indicates that a chapter on workplace harassment was included in the Labour Standards Act in 2019 (articles 76-2 and 76 3) but emphasizes that: (1) the Act does not apply to workplaces with fewer than five employees which are exposed to harassment, verbal abuse and human rights violations; (2) it is not possible to address harassment faced by certain non-regular workers nor harassment perpetrated by persons other than the employers (such as their relatives); (3) once harassment is reported, the right of the trade union to participate in the investigation process should be guaranteed and an obligation of confidentiality should be imposed on the investigators; (4) sanctions such as fines should be imposed in case of direct workplace harassment by an employer, and criminal proceedings engaged in case of repeated harassment; and (5) in order to prevent harassment, there should be an obligation on the employer to conduct education programmes and to assess the risks. The Committee also notes that, in reply to these observations, the Government states that it continuously strengthens the implementation of the workplace policy on preventing harassment. It recognizes that workers in small businesses should also be protected from harassment but that the extension of this protection to workplaces with fewer than five workers requires a comprehensive review of its enforceability. It adds that on 2 September 2020 a bill to amend the Labour Standards Act with a view to providing for sanctions on employers who commit workplace harassment, was proposed. Finally, the Government emphasizes that it has included compulsory education regarding harassment in occupational safety and health education since January 2020. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the status of the proposal to amend the Labour Standards Act with a view to providing for sanctions in the case of workplace harassment; and (ii) any progress in expanding the scope of protection from harassment to workplaces with fewer than five workers. Please provide information also on the manner in which it is ensured that workers, including non-regular workers, are protected from harassment in employment and occupation, including from persons other than the employer.

Article 1(1)(a). Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. Legislative developments and practical measures. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the implementation of the measures adopted, the methodology used, including the definition of sexual harassment adopted, and the findings of the special investigation launched by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) as well as any steps taken to follow up with a view to addressing sexual harassment in the public sector; and (2) the implementation and enforcement of the new provisions on sexual harassment contained in the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act and any measures taken in this regard in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sexual harassment is defined under article 3 of the Framework Act on Gender Equality. It also notes the Government’s statement that, in 2018, it carried out special inspections of some 2,000 public organizations to ensure that its measures to prevent sexual harassment in the public sector were effective. More than 98 per cent of the surveyed organizations had grievance counselling services, guidelines for prevention, designated grievance counsellors, grievance deliberation committees and other related systems in place. However, it was found that most of them left room for improvement, in relation to access to counselling and expertise in dealing with sexual harassment cases. In July 2018, the Government introduced new measures such as setting standards for disciplinary action against managers who do not act to protect victims, making it mandatory for organizations to establish a manual on handling cases, and strengthening education for managers and investigative agencies. In June 2019, the Government made it mandatory for all workers at central and regional government bodies to receive gender sensitive education and it specified the measures to be taken by managers of central government bodies in order to prevent sexual harassment. The Government took steps to raise the participation rate of high-ranking officials in public organizations in preventive education (from less than 50 per cent in 2018 to 70 per cent in 2019). The Government also indicates that it strengthened the sanctions against perpetrators as well as the protection of victims. Thus, in April 2019 it added all types of sexual violence to the prescribed grounds for disqualification and ipso facto retirement from public service (the disqualification period being extended from two to three years). In addition, in May 2019, it established standards for disciplinary action in the case of a failure to protect sexual harassment victims, intentional concealment of the case or “whitewashing” of the case. Regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act, the Government recalls some of the amendments made in order to strengthen the fight against sexual harassment and better protect victims. It also provides information on the results of workplace guidance and monitoring as well as on the status of reported cases. The Committee notes, from the 2018 report of the NHRCK, that it undertook several surveys related to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including at work, where it notes that such harassment and violence frequently take place in a context of hierarchical power despite continued efforts to root out such practices. It also found that public systems for the prevention and remedying of such acts were either absent or had stopped functioning properly. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted and implemented in order to address effectively the issue of sexual harassment at work, in the public as well as in the private sector, and to provide information on any amendments to existing legislation or legislative or policy development in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the relevant sections of the Standardized Employment Rules (proposal) to which the Government referred in its previous report.

Discrimination based on sex and employment status. The Committee recalls that many of the non-regular workers (that is part-time, temporary or fixed-term and dispatched workers) are women and therefore discrimination on the basis of employment status has an impact on the employment of women, in particular on their conditions of employment. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) assess the impact of the legislative reforms on non-regular workers and take the necessary steps to ensure that such workers do not face discrimination on the basis of sex and employment status; and (2) ensure that they can exercise their rights, and are effectively protected against reprisals. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it held several meetings with interested parties with a view to establishing and implementing guidelines for the conversion of non-regular workers into regular status in the public sector. It also notes that, under article 9 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees, any fixed-term or part-time worker subjected to discriminatory treatment based on employment status may apply for correction of such discriminatory treatment with the Labour Relations Commission within six months of the discriminatory act. Labour inspectors may also request employers to take corrective action when they detect such discriminatory practices. Article 16 of the same Act provides these workers with protection from retaliation. The Government adds that, in 2018, it introduced “special inspections” on discriminatory practices in workplaces with a large number of non-regular employees. The Committee also notes the FKTU’s and KCTU’s observations that the protection offered by the Act is ineffective because there are too many limitations. The FKTU adds that this Act, as well as the Labour Standards Act, should be amended to provide better protection. The Government replies that reforming the system for correcting discrimination requires careful consideration as opinions vary among workers, employers and experts.

The Committee had also asked the Government to provide information on the implementation of a project to convert non-regular workers in the public sector to regular workers in public entities, and any such steps taken for the private sector, as well as information on any measures taken to improve the conditions of employment of non-regular workers, in particular women workers, both in the private and the public sectors. Concerning the public sector, the Government explains that its prior concern in doing so is to ensure job stability while gradually improving the working conditions of these workers. The plan is to convert 205,000 non-regular workers into regular employment by 2020. As of May 2020, the conversion was decided for 195,570 workers and completed for 180,594 of them (i.e. 95.4 and 88.1 per cent respectively). An additional 6,195 conversions of workers to regular employment were decided in a second phase (May 2020). According to a survey cited by the Government and carried out in May 2019 on 1,815 workers whose employment was converted, their average annual salary increased by 16.3 per cent and these workers reported a high level of satisfaction. The FKTU recognizes that the working environment of workers whose status was regularized improved to a certain degree but is of the view that achievements are insufficient and warns against the creation of “regular workers in name only”. In this regard, the KCTU refers to the practice of still classifying converted workers to a different category than the category of “fully regular” workers and applying to them a different system of wages, welfare and benefits. It states that, despite these measures, the number of non-regular workers grew from 2014 to 2018 in number as well as in proportion. The KCTU also states that many workers are excluded from the possibility of being converted to regular status, and that this affects women more than men as they work in the most precarious jobs. The Government replies that it provides consulting support and on-site guidance in order to ensure that the system is non-discriminatory.

As regards the private sector, the Government underlines the difficulty of prohibiting non-regular employment or force the conversion of non-regular workers into a regular employment. It mentions however that, in order to encourage voluntary conversion among private businesses, it runs a conversion support programme that covers part of the labour costs of businesses which voluntarily convert non-regular workers to regular employment. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF according to which a more realistic approach would be to prevent “unreasonable discrimination” against non-regular workers through legislation rather than to force conversion of these workers into regular workers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has been seeking better employment for women both quantitatively and qualitatively, in particular through the strengthening of childbirth and childcare support for non-regular female workers. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to refer to the comments made under the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the progress achieved regarding the conversion of non-regular workers – in the public as well as in the private sector – into regular workers, including statistics disaggregated by sex on the number of workers concerned and their proportion among the overall number of workers. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the outcomes of the special inspections on discriminatory practices introduced in 2018, as well as on the number of cases submitted to the Labour Relations Commission and their result; and (ii) any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system in place for protecting workers from retaliation when filing claims for discrimination and providing appropriate remedy to victims of such practices.

Migrant workers. Previously, while welcoming the measures that had been adopted to contribute to the protection of foreign workers, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) monitor and review the impact of the Employment Permit System (EPS) on the situation of migrant workers, in particular with respect to the possibility to change workplace on the basis of “unfair treatment by the employer”; and (2) review the complaint procedure to determine the reasons for the high rate of cases relating to employment discrimination dropped or abandoned. As regards the former, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) in February 2019, it adopted the revised “Notification on grounds of workplace changes not attributable to foreign workers” (No. 2019-7) which provides for an immediate change of workplace in cases of sexual violence and expanded the list of perpetrators of unfair treatment by specifying, in addition to the employer, colleagues as well as lineal ascendants and descendants of the employer; and (2) it amended the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign workers by adding article 22-2, which entered into force on 16 July 2019 and imposed that accommodation for foreign workers meet the standards under the Labour Standards Act and that information on the accommodation be provided to migrant workers before signing an employment contract (a violation of this provision being a valid reason to change workplace according to article 25.1.2 as amended). The Government adds that 59.3 per cent of the workplaces subject to guidance and inspections in 2018 were found in violation of the law as regards migrant workers. The KCTU, in its observations, states that 88.3 per cent of workplaces were found to be in violation of the law in inspections carried out by the Ministry of Employment and Labour in March and April 2018 and points out that, out of the 1,478 specific instances of illegality found, 93.7 per cent were concluded with orders to make corrections and only two cases resulted in judicial proceedings. It adds that it remains exceedingly difficult for migrant workers to prove their employers’ wrongdoings, including on issues of substandard accommodation or unfair treatment (such as non-payment of wages, false or non-recording of hours worked, charging migrant workers in case they change employers), and, as a result, many abandon their original employers illegally, notwithstanding the wages they are owed, and are compelled to work informally with lower pay and without legal protection. The KCTU cites several examples of severe adverse consequences suffered by migrant workers due to the EPS and indicates that migrant workers filed a case with the Constitutional Court in March 2020 arguing that the EPS is unconstitutional and in breach of their basic rights. According to the Government, however, when a migrant worker fails to provide enough evidence, an employment centre may check directly if the accommodation is substandard. It adds that 99.9 per cent of the approximately 10,000 requests per year of change of workplace based on reasons not attributable to the migrant worker are granted. The Committee further notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended that the Government amend the EPS and other legislation applicable to migrant workers to: (1) facilitate family reunification; (2) remove restrictions that prevent migrant workers from changing their workplace; (3) extend the maximum period of stay; and (4) enable migrant workers to change to a different type of visa more easily with a view to facilitate migrant workers’ access to long-term or permanent residence permits and reduce the risk of irregular stays (CERD/C/KOR/CO/17-19, 10 January 2019, paragraphs 9 and 10).

As regard the reasons for the high rate of cases relating to employment discrimination dropped or abandoned, the Government indicates that there are no statistics on the reasons for the abandonment of cases but that, in most cases, it is because an amicable mutual agreement was concluded. The Government states that, out of the 17 cases filed between July 2016 and June 2019 with the NHRCK, only one resulted in conciliation, all the others being rejected or dismissed. It recognizes that migrant workers remain more vulnerable and face more difficulty in filing a request for remedy than Korean workers due to their residence status and linguistic and cultural barriers. The Government undertakes to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that migrant workers enjoy equal rights as regards applications for a remedy. In this regard, the Committee notes that the NHRCK prepared in 2018 a draft for the updated version of the Guidelines on the Human Rights of Migrants. Finally, it recalls that the CERD called for: (1) amending the legislation applicable to migrant workers to eliminate discrimination against non-citizens in relation to working conditions and work requirements; (2) strengthening labour inspections in industries employing migrant workers; and (3) guaranteeing access to adequate remedies for migrant workers in cases where their rights are violated and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable and sanctioned with appropriate penalties (CERD/C/KOR/CO/17-19, paragraph 12). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to improve the protection of migrant workers against discriminatory treatment and their access to justice; and to provide statistics on the number of complaints filed and their outcome, including the number of cases abandoned and the reasons for such. Please also provide a copy of the updated Guidelines on the Human Rights of Migrants, if adopted.

General observation of 2018. With regard to the above issues, and in more general terms, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Article 1(1)(b). Additional grounds of discrimination. Age and disability. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure that workers alleging discrimination on the basis of age or disability could effectively exercise their rights and have access to effective remedies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that discrimination in employment based on age is prohibited under article 4-4 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion and that victims may seek remedy with the NHRCK. The Committee also notes that the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy against Infringement of their Rights, etc. also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment (articles 10, 11, 12, 32 and 33). However, noting, from the information provided by the Government, that the NHRCK only makes “recommendations” to the employer or the relevant inspectorate and that the Ministry of Employment and Labour may issue a corrective order on the request of the victim if the employer is not complying with the recommendation “with no justifiable reason” and if “the damage done is deemed serious” the Committee considers that these conditions limit to some extent the possibility of victims of discriminations based on age or disability to obtain redress. It further notes that the Government indicates that some cases may have been abandoned or withdrawn by complainants due to amicable settlement during the investigation but acknowledges that some of them have been dropped by fear of reprisal or doubts about the possibility of a prompt settlement or remedy. As regards the latter, the Committee notes the Government’s pledge to monitor the issue and find ways to address it. The Committee also notes the KCTU’s observations that the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion is not sufficiently enforced, that sanctions are minimal and that age-based discrimination persists in more complex and less-visible manners than open discrimination in job advertisement. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number of cases relating to discrimination in employment based on age or disability and on any initiative taken to address efficiently the issue of victims’ access to justice in such cases.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women. Policy developments. Previously, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of several gender equality plans and on any steps taken to address gender stereotypes and career interruptions and their impact on women’s participation in employment. Regarding gender equality plans, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies (2018–2022) sets out and implements various policy tasks to ensure equal rights and opportunities between men and women and create a society that promotes work–life balance. An implementation plan is formulated every year. The Government declares having reinforced its efforts to address gender discrimination in the mass media and online and provided gender equality education to workers who are in contact with the public or those engaged in occupations that have an important social impact. It is also working to reduce gender gaps in the labour market, to improve the working environment in sectors predominantly occupied by women, and to increase the number of women scientists and engineers by supporting them to return to work after a career break. The Government adds that it is enhancing gender balance in the private sector through public-private partnerships such as the signing of the “Gender Balance Inclusive Growth Partnership Agreement” with 10 economic organizations and the signing of autonomous agreements with enterprises. In the public sector, it has created a division dedicated at promoting gender equality and gender equality policies in eight major ministries. The Committee notes the results of the 2019 implementation monitoring shared by the Government. It welcomes the fact that all goals for 2019 have been achieved, and in many cases surpassed, and that more women are occupying positions with greater decision-making authority in the public sector. It notes, however, that their proportion remains low (under 26 per cent), except in the education sector (principals and vice-principals) and in government committees under the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Furthermore, the objectives set for 2022 are low (on average 19.2 per cent of women) and even lower for senior civil service officers and managerial employees at public organizations (10 per cent), military officers (8.8 per cent), and managerial positions at both the Korean National Police Agency (7 per cent) and Korean Coast Guard (2.8 per cent). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has established and implemented the “Women’s Employment Plan” as the Sixth Basic Plan for Equal Employment Opportunities focusing on three aspects (preventing career breaks, supporting reemployment after a career break and creating a non-discriminatory working environment) with seven major projects and 64 implementation strategies. These strategies include, in particular, establishing a remedy process against gender discrimination at the level of the Labour Relations Commission; strengthening sexual harassment prevention and monitoring; expanding infrastructure, such as dedicated labour inspectors and equal opportunity counselling centres; identifying gender in employment impact assessment; increasing investments in businesses performing well in terms of female employment; and encouraging more women to start a business. According to the Government, as of December 2019, 46.9 per cent of these 64 strategies had been completed while another 34.4 per cent were in progress (some had been delayed, notably because the process of amending legislation had been postponed).

As regards the steps taken to address gender stereotypes, the Government indicates that, as of June 2019, both the female employment rate and the female labour force participation were at a record high (58.3 and 60.7 per cent, respectively) while recognizing that the labour force participation of women remains lower than the average for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and that the gender employment gap remains high (17.6 percentage point difference). In the supplementary information, the Government indicates that the female employment rate fell to 56.9 per cent as of July 2020. This is due to the fact that the service sector, which employs a large number of women and provides face-to-face services (such as accommodation, food service, education, wholesale and retail business), has been hit hard with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government affirms that, in response, it has strengthened support to ensure that no one is left behind when it comes to maternal protection by providing childbirth benefits for persons not covered by employment insurance and expanding childcare leave benefits for spouses. It is also strengthening support to ensure that the “Women’s Employment Plan” is fully carried out in order to secure quality jobs for women. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to implement the various gender equality plans, including detailed information on measures addressing gender discrimination in the mass media and online as well as on the number and nature of gender equality education programmes developed. It also asks the Government to provide statistical data on the distribution of men and women in various types of economic activity and occupations both in the public and private sectors in order to assess the progress made. Please provide updated information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the respective employment rates of men and women.

Article 3(d). Participation of women in the police force. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request to step up efforts to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women at all levels in the police force, the Government indicates that it has brought the ratio of women in the annual number of newly hired police officers from 16.5 per cent in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2018. The Committee notes, however, that as of late 2019, only 11.7 per cent of police officers were women, and that the target for 2022 is set at 15 per cent. It also notes that the ratio of women does not exceed 6 per cent for inspectors and higher positions. While welcoming the progress achieved, the Committee wishes to point out that it is important also to deal with the persistent underlying causes that still need to be addressed, and that gender stereotypes and occupational segregation continue to be major underlying issues affecting the full application of the Convention, in particular in male-dominated sectors. The Committee asks the Government to continue its efforts to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women at all levels in the police force, including at senior level, and to provide information on the results achieved in this regard. The Committee also asks the Government to envisage measures to make the nature of the job more attractive to women, such as for example, a bigger focus on flexible working arrangements to help improve the work–life balance for police officers.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KEF communicated with the Government’s supplementary information.

Article 4 of the Convention. Leave entitlements for men and women workers with family responsibilities. Previously, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the leave entitlements in practice, encouraged the Government to continue to take proactive measures so that more men exercise their right to take leave for childcare, and to indicate the results achieved by such measures. It notes that, according to statistics provided by the Government in its reports, the number of recipients of childcare leave continued to significantly increase between 2015 and 2019 (from 87,339 to 105,165 recipients in general and from 4,872 to 22,297 men). However, while the ratio of men among childcare leave beneficiaries significantly improved (from 5.6 per cent to 21.2 per cent in the same period), it remains low. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, previously the Government indicated that the underlying causes of the low number of men taking childcare leave is due to the overall social and employment cultures (such as the long-standing practice of working long hours and fear of what the supervisor or co-workers might think; in addition to the fact that men are still the majority of the primary – if not the only – revenue earner in the family). Consequently, the Committee encourages the Government: (i) to strengthen awareness-raising and education initiatives for both women and men, employers and workers, and society at large, to bring about better understanding of the problems encountered by all workers with family responsibilities and the importance of promoting equality between men and women with family responsibilities as well as facilitate the reconciliation between work and family responsibilities; (ii) to report on the results achieved by measures taken to encourage more men to exercise their right to take leave for childcare; and (iii) to continue to provide information on the leave entitlements, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such entitlements.

Working time arrangements and part-time work. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government: 1) to provide information on the status of the amendments relating to the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system as well as on the implementation of the 2018 amendments to the Labour Standards Act to reduce working hours, the trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women, as well as on any measures taken to address excessive overtime work and its impact on work-life balance; and 2) to indicate the number of men and women using the possibility of moving from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa, and the measures taken to avoid female concentration in part-time work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it supports businesses with less than 300 employees to implement the 2018 amendments to the Labour Standards Act (reducing working hours to 52 hours per week), including through measures adopted in December 2019 to grant a “guidance period” to businesses with 50 to 299 employees and deploying “On-site Support Teams of the Reduced Workweek” at 48 local labour offices nationwide. In this regard, the Committee notes the KEF’s observations that companies would need flexible working hours systems in order to cope with the challenge of implementing the 52 hours work week. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the reduced working hours scheme under the Labour Standards Act. It notes that the number of beneficiaries of reduced working hours during childcare period doubled between 2017 and 2019 (from 2,821 to 5,660) but that men still represent only 13.1 per cent of these beneficiaries (they were 11.4 per cent in 2017 and 14.4 per cent in 2018). The Committee also notes the constant but slow decline of the annual working hours of wage workers in businesses with five regular employees or more (down to 1,978 hours in 2019, i.e. a decrease of 3.6 per cent compared to 2016). It also notes the Government’s indication that it publicizes, through media outlets, the program allowing full-time workers to shift to part-time work when needs arise and then return to full-time work, highlighting that both men and women can convert to part-time work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as the demand for caring services increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it temporarily raised the amounts of benefits provided under this system of temporary shift to part-time work. The statistics provided by the Government show that 5,847 persons took advantage of this system as of June 2020, an increase of 83.6 per cent compared to the same month in 2019. The Committee notes, however, that these statistics show a decrease of the proportion of men using this system: in 2019, 17 per cent of beneficiaries were men compared to 27.8 per cent in 2018 (the temporary figure as of June 2020 being at 24.9 per cent). Finally, the Committee notes that a bill to reform the flexible hours system, based on a tripartite consensus reached within the Economic, Social and Labour Council (ESLC), was submitted to the National Assembly on 6 July 2020. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of workers, disaggregated by sex, using the switchable part-time work system, and especially the number and proportion of women moving back to full-time employment after using the system to work part-time, and to provide information on the concrete measures taken to avoid concentration of women in part-time work, in the context of reconciling work and family responsibilities. Please provide information on any legislative reform of the system.

Other members of the family. Formerly, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the family care leave system, including statistics. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that Article 22-2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act, 2007 was amended as of August 2019 in order to: (1) add grand-parents and grand-children to the list of relatives for which family care leave can be taken; and (2) introduce a second paragraph allowing workers to request “short-term family care leave” for up to ten days per year, one day at a time (the pre-existing “family care leave” provided in the first paragraph of this article being for up to 90 days per year, to be taken by periods of 30 days minimum), with the ten days of short-term leave being deducted from the global annual allowance of 90 days. In the supplementary information provided, the Government states that this type of family care leave was increased from 10 to 20 days per year in September 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as family care leave is agreed between the employer and the employee, there is no data in the employment insurance database and it is difficult to obtain specific figures on its usage. It adds that, in case a request for such leave is denied without justifiable reason, the employee may report the case to the Ministry of Employment and Labour, and labour inspectors would decide if the employer violated the law. If the employer fails to prove its case, an administrative fine not exceeding five million won (USD 4,000) may be imposed. However, since the introduction of the family care leave system in 2012, no fine has been imposed. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of the family care leave system and any legislative or policy developments in this regard, including on the increase of family care leave from 10 to 20 days per year.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the availability of and accessibility of affordable childcare services and facilities, including their utilization by workers. It notes the information and statistics provided by the Government on the subject, including the fact that the Government runs a Public Notice System for childcare centers with a view to inform parents on the offer of childcare facilities. It also notes that a child care service has been put in place whereby caregivers go to private homes to help families with children aged 12 or less where both parents are working. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information, including statistics, on childcare services and facilities, including their utilization by workers.

Article 6. Information and education. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its request for information on the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to overcoming existing difficulties for men and women workers with family responsibilities, and on the way workers’ and employers’ organizations are fully integrated into the development, monitoring and updating of work–family balance measures. It notes the Government’s indication that it carries out consulting services, education programs and public campaigns, offers workplace education and holds family-friendly business management forums. Regional family-friendly councils, created to promote family-friendly practices in society, select issues reflecting local situations and conduct cooperative projects such as organizing joint campaigns and forums, utilizing skilled regional workforce and offering consulting services. As of 2019, 14 councils are operating in 15 cities and provinces. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to work-life balance.

Article 7. Vocational guidance and training. The Committee notes that, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government indicates that new job centers for women offer customized training courses in sectors with high demand for workers to women who have taken a career break. It also notes the statistics disaggregated by occupational sector provided.

Article 11. Employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on the activities of the Public–Private Work-Family Balance Council and its recommendations relating specifically to workers with family responsibilities and to provide a copy of its annual report if any. It notes the Government’s indication that the Council does not publish a report but that it made ten proposals for workplace innovation, in order to promote a culture that values a healthy work-life balance and improve work productivity, among which: reducing unnecessary overtime work, refraining from contacting employees after work, promoting the use of flexible work, promoting a healthy after-work company gathering culture and promoting the use of annual leave. The Committee asks the Government to indicate if, and how, these proposals were implemented and the results obtained, in particular on the percentage of men seizing all these opportunities to participate more equitably in the sharing of family responsibilities. Please provide information on any other initiative taken by the Public-Private Work-Family Balance Council.

Enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide: (1) information on the supervisory authorities and enforcement mechanisms giving effect to the provisions of the Convention, as well as any administrative or judicial decisions relating to the application of the Convention; and (2) information that may enable the Committee to assess how the principles of the Convention are applied in practice and how progress is being made. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning workplace guidance and inspection as well as the handling of reported cases. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information, including statistics, on the cases handled by the supervisory authorities and enforcement mechanisms.

The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its general observation adopted in 2019, recalling the relevance, importance and practical usefulness of the principles laid down in the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165), whose aim is to ensure that all workers with family responsibilities – women as well as men – are not disadvantaged in relation to other workers and, in particular, that women with family responsibilities are not disadvantaged in comparison to men with family responsibilities. Recalling the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work’s aim to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stressing the importance of the Convention in achieving this goal, the Committee called for member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations, to strengthen efforts towards specific goals.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KEF communicated with the Government’s supplementary information.

Article 3 of the Convention. National policy. Legislative developments. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the application of the Framework Act on Gender Equality, 2014 as amended, and the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, 2007 as amended; (2) the concrete measures taken in application of several plans aiming at gender equality in employment and support to workers with family responsibilities; and (3) the family-friendly company certification system, indicating the criteria taken into account and process to award the certification to a corporation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, notably the implementation of the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies (2018–2022) to ensure equal rights and opportunities of men and women and create a society that promotes work-life balance, the setting up of a gender equality committee and yearly implementation plans. It notes with interest that the scope of application of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, which used to be limited to businesses with five employees or more, has been extended to all workplaces, except those constituted only by relatives living together and housekeeping employees (article 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 28910 of May 28, 2018), and that the paternity leave, under article 18-2 of the Act, has been extended from five to ten days in August 2019.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has established and implemented the “Women’s Employment Plan” as the Sixth Basic Plan for Equal Employment Opportunities, focusing on three aspects (preventing career breaks, supporting reemployment after a career break and creating a non-discriminatory working environment) with seven major projects and 64 implementation strategies. It has taken measures to increase support and quality of childcare and nursery services and guaranteed workers’ maternal and parental rights by eliminating blind spots in maternity and parental leave (notably by raising the benefits after the first three months of childcare leave, up to 50 per cent of the ordinary wage, and allowing workers who have worked for less than one year to take childcare leave). It also promoted family-friendly business management by raising public awareness on the issue, enhancing support and guidance for companies to promote work-life balance, strengthening public-private cooperation and promoting a culture of leaving work on time. According to the Government, the results of a 2018 implementation monitoring survey show enhanced support for childcare and the spread of a ‘work-life balance’ culture. The Government introduced child benefit in the amount of 100,000 won per month (US$80) for families in the bottom 90 per cent of income-earners and expanded the childcare support infrastructure (12 new community childcare centres, 574 public kindergartens and 238 public childcare centres). It also improved the childcare support system, notably for vulnerable families, by upgrading in-home childcare services and increasing childcare expense support for single-parent families. Finally, it raised the ceiling for father’s childcare leave bonus schemes and increased the income replacement rate of benefits for reduced working hours during childcare periods (up to 80 per cent); implemented a vacation support program for workers and encouraged more companies to apply for a “family-friendly enterprise certification” (3,833 as of January 2020, compared to 2,807 in 2017). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the criteria taken into account and the process to award such certification.

The Committee welcomes such initiatives, as well as the implementation of the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Economic Activities of Career-interrupted Women (2015-2018) and the coming into force of the third Basic Plan (2020–2024). The Committee notes that many of these initiatives are geared specifically towards women and that even the names of some of the plans and initiatives reveal the correlation between caregiving duties (especially towards children) and female workers. The Committee wishes to recall that the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165)), have the dual objective of creating equality of opportunity and treatment in working life between men and women with family responsibilities, on the one hand, and between men and women with such responsibilities and workers without such responsibilities, on the other. Where inequalities exist between men and women workers regarding their family responsibilities and where that situation results in restricting the economic activity of women workers only, it would be legitimate to aim measures at women, provided that men are not formally barred from access to such measures should they find themselves in the same circumstances (see General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, paragraphs 25 to 29). The Committee also notes the observations made by FKTU and KCTU regarding the fact that family obligations are still overwhelmingly associated with, and carried out by, women and that female workers’ careers are disproportionately impacted.

In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government: (i) to indicate the concrete measures taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment for men and women workers with family responsibilities as well as between workers with family responsibilities and those without such responsibilities; (ii) to indicate, more particularly, how it is ensured that those family-friendly measures do not reinforce the stereotype predominantly associating family responsibilities to female workers and create a feminization of diverse forms of employment and working arrangements; and (iii) to continue to provide information on any new legislative or policy development with a view to implementing the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) communicated with the Government’s report and the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), received on 31 August 2018.

Article 1 of the Convention. Equality of treatment of migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures aimed at re-establishing equality of treatment between national and foreign workers by amending sections 57 and 58 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (IACIA), pursuant to which the employment injury disability pension of foreign workers, who leave the Republic of Korea, is converted into a lump sum whereas Korean nationals continue receiving such pensions while residing abroad. The Committee notes the reply provided by the Government in its report, which refers to difficulties in monitoring the eligibility of foreign nationals to employment injury pensions (for example, due to death or remarriage) after they leave the country while the eligibility of Korean nationals residing abroad can be checked through the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s intention to continue consulting with other countries who are parties to the Convention to find ways to facilitate the sharing of information necessary for the payment of benefits to foreign nationals who reside abroad. The Committee also notes the FKTU’s observations indicating that the Government should ensure the collection of the information on eligibility of foreign nationals to employment injury pensions through the Employment Permit System (EPS) centres of the foreign nationals’ countries of origin. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply that the EPS centres lack personnel and therefore cannot handle the additional task of reviewing pension eligibilities of injured foreign workers. The Committee further notes that, according to the KCTU, measures should be taken to enable injured foreign workers to receive disability aids, rehabilitation services, including treatments for complications and vocational training after they return to their countries of origin. The KCTU also indicates that seafarers who are subject to the Act on Accident Compensation Insurance for Fishers and Fishing Vessels of 2017 get a compensation for employment injury based on a minimum wage scale that is lower than the minimum wage applicable to national seafarers. In addition, the KCTU refers to language barrier as a main source of difficulties for foreign workers in applying for workers’ compensation and participation in post-accident vocational trainings. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures: (1) to ensure equality of treatment in respect of workers’ cash compensation and medical care benefits for all foreign workers, including seafarers, who are nationals of any other Member which has ratified the Convention; and (2) to ensure the provision of employment injury pensions instead of lump sums to foreign workers leaving the Republic of Korea, with a view to give full effect to Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of agreements concluded with other ratifying countries in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to facilitate the access of foreign workers to employment injury benefits by ensuring that relevant documents and information are available in a language that they can understand.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on new legal provisions on securing better compliance with the national legislation on employment injury. The Government replies that it continues strengthening penalties for employers who failed to report or who concealed industrial accidents by adopting new provisions on criminal punishment and increasing fines. The Committee notes the FKTU’s observations indicating that although there is an increase in the number of applications for recognition of industrial accidents, stronger punishment measures should be imposed to prevent employers from not reporting and concealing industrial accidents. In this regard, the Government indicates that it intends to promote education activities and campaigns on the reporting on industrial accidents in the workplace, and enhance administrative and legal enforcement actions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the measures taken to enhance the enforcement and application of the national legislation.

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.

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.

The Committee notes the observations of the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and the Federation of Korea Trade Unions (FKTU) communicated with the Government’s report as well as the Government’s reply to these observations.

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. Further to its previous comments on the possible coverage of domestic workers, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that efforts were being made to introduce labour legislation to improve the protection of domestic workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any specific progress made with regard to the issues covered by the Convention.

Article 4(3)(b). Appointment of independent members of the minimum wage fixing body. Further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes that, in reply to the FKTU’s reiterated concerns, the Government indicates that it plans to have discussions with relevant stakeholders on the need for any institutional improvement regarding the process of nomination of members of the Minimum Wage Council who represent the public interest. The Committee recalls that Article 4(3)(b) states that, wherever it is appropriate to the nature of the minimum wage fixing machinery, provision shall be made for the direct participation in its operation of persons having recognized competence for representing the general interests of the country and appointed after full consultation with representative organizations of employers and workers concerned.

Article 5. Enforcement. The Committee notes that both KFTU and KCTU raise a number of concerns regarding the effective enforcement of the minimum wage legislation. It notes that the Government indicates in its reply that it would increase the number of labour inspectors, designate minimum wage inspectors and increase the number of workplaces subject to minimum wage inspections gradually, and that it would consider revising the applicable rules to address minimum wage violations more effectively. Finally, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request on labour inspection activities and other enforcement measures. The Committee recalls that Article 5 calls for appropriate measures aiming at ensuring the application of the provisions relating to minimum wages and that Paragraph 14 of the Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation No. 135 lists a number of examples of such measures.

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) received on 17 September 2018 and the Government’s reply thereto, communicated together with its report. The Committee further notes the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 31 August 2018. The Committee invites the Government to provide its comments in respect to the observations of the KCTU.

Article 1(3) of the Convention. Policies and programmes appropriate to national conditions. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments requesting further information on the implementation of the Work-Learning Dual System established in 2014, the Government reports that the system combines in-class education and training with hands-on work experience. The Government indicates that, as of May 2018, 12,493 enterprises had been selected as dual training providers, and 67,307 participants had benefited from the training. The Government also indicates that, to achieve a workforce tailored to industry-specific needs, 17 Industry-Specific Human Resources Development Committees (ISCs) were established in September 2016, in which 456 associations, organizations and businesses participate. At the regional level, the Government built an industry-specific infrastructure, which includes: 70 Work-Learning Dual Training Centres for workers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); specialized support institutions for quality control and promotion of the Work-Learning Dual System; and industry-specific Special Apprenticeship Zones. The system has expanded its scope to include the newly employed, as well as students in vocational high schools, universities and other educational institutions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a draft law to regulate the Work-Learning Dual System was submitted to the National Assembly in 2016, containing provisions concerning the training environments provided by employers, setting out protections for workers who are also learners and providing for certification for apprentices. The Committee also notes the adoption of an Amendment to the Vocational Education and Training Promotion Act (VETPA), with the objective of protecting the rights of vocational students and trainees and building a safer training environment. In its observations, the FKTU maintains that the status of a learning worker is more vulnerable than that of an ordinary worker, indicating that the introduction of a “learning employment contract” proposed by the Government would be inappropriate and potentially lead to abuses. In its reply to the FKTU, the Government indicates that both categories of workers in fact have the same legal status and enjoy the same protections, and that the learning employment contract stipulates training-related matters, such as hours and content, and is in addition to the statutory content of an ordinary employment contract. The Committee also notes the observations made by the KCTU, alleging that, despite the requirement of section 9 of the amended VETPA that employers use the standard contract template approved by the Ministries of Education, Labour and SMEs, employers commonly – and with impunity – write up and maintain different contracts for on-site student trainees. The KCTU also alleges that the SME Vocational Training Consortium Program is being misused in that large corporations are using it as a vehicle to illegally source workers via subcontractors, rather than hiring full-time workers of their own. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated detailed information, including disaggregated statistical data, on the functioning of the Work-Learning Dual System, including on the activities of the Industry-Specific Human Resources Development Committees, the Work-Learning Dual Training Centres and the industry-specific Special Apprenticeship Zones and their impact on participants’ access to lasting employment indicating the starting wages received by participants, the average period of time between completion of the training and employment as well as the nature of the employment secured (full-time, part-time, fixed or short-term, or permanent). The Committee further requests the Government to provide detailed information on measures taken or envisaged to adapt continuously technical and vocational training to sector-specific labour market needs. It further requests the Government to provide a copy of the Amendment to the Vocational Education and Training Promotion Act (VETPA) and on any other measures adopted by the National Assembly relevant to the application of the Convention, including in relation to the Work-Learning Dual System.

Article 1(5) of the Convention. Equality of opportunity and treatment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its 2013 direct request concerning vocational education and training opportunities for specific groups.

Young persons. The Government refers to a number of Work-Learning Dual Programs targeting young persons. In 2018, these Programs included: 194 Industry-Academia Partnership Apprenticeship Schools where students at specialized high schools start apprenticeships at enterprises while continuing their studies; 16 Uni-Tech Programs that strengthen links between vocational educational courses by integrating the curricula of specialized high schools and junior colleges; the Industry Professional Practice (IPP) Work-Learning Dual System implemented in 38 schools; and the Pathways in Technical Education Convergent Hi-Technology (P-TECH) model used in 13 schools for intensive vocational training. In its observations, the KCTU refers to a report issued by the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI), “Implementation of Educational Policies Supporting Workforce Development”, indicating that, in 2015, 20.5 per cent of high school seniors in three educational offices were dispatched to workplaces of no relevance to their studies as a form of cheap labour. The KCTU further maintains that, in 2013, 15 high schools dispatched 36 students to hazard-prone businesses, such as semiconductor plants and factories that handle first-grade carcinogenic substances. The KCTU alleges that high school students are exposed to bullying, sexual harassment, burnout and stress at workplaces where they train and that they are both overworked and underpaid. In addition, the KCTU maintains that students have been used to illegally replace striking workers. Additionally, due to Ministry of Employment Regulation 26 on the Enforcement Directive for the Employer-Commissioned Training of College Students, students are forced to remain at their jobs training or face expulsion from school, leading to situations of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on measures taken or envisaged to safeguard the rights of young people in vocational training programmes. In addition, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to Paragraphs 18 and 19(f) and (g) of the Human Resources Development Recommendation, 2004 (No. 195), and requests the Government to provide statistics, disaggregated by gender and age and other socio-economic indicators, on the impact of vocational training provided to young persons, including on the level of starting wages received by young persons after completing the training, and the period of time between completion of training and their entry into employment, compared to persons who have not undergone such trainings.

The new middle-aged who need re-employment support; the self-employed who are more likely to change their jobs; and workers in special employment types. The Government reports that in 2018, Korea Polytechnic provided several programmes for 300 students categorized as the new middle-aged, including electric system control, senior healthcare and air-conditioning and refrigeration. The Government further reports that the Tomorrow Learning Card System was implemented for workers in special employment relationships. The Committee requests the Government to provide a definition of the new middle-aged and of workers in special employment relationships. The Committee further requests the Government to provide more information on the activities and impact of the Tomorrow Learning Card System.

Women. The Government indicates that the Korea Polytechnic runs vocational training for women returning to work after having taken career breaks. In 2018, four special campuses offered seven courses focused on re-employment training in the beauty and care industries, in which 950 women participated. The KCTU observes that women are subjected to discriminatory working environments that include wage gaps, sexual harassment, gender-streamed training and higher barriers to accessing the job market. Additionally, the workers’ organization alleges that the Government is alienating women from securing employment by forcing them into jobs where they work short hours (less than 15 hours a week), preventing them from obtaining regular employment status as defined in the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (APFPW). The Committee notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has expressed concern at the “persistence of the gender gap in pay (amounting to a difference of 35.4 per cent in 2016) … which remains the widest among all OECD countries”. Furthermore, the CEDAW Committee noted that 70.2 per cent of short-time workers in the State party are women with limited protection under the Korean Labour Standards Act and the APFPW. Women in this situation may only enrol in the national pension scheme as individually insured persons and in employment insurance programmes only after three months of continuous employment. (CEDAW/C/KOR/CO/8, March 2018, paragraph 38). Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 6 of the Labour Standards Act prohibits discrimination against workers on the basis of gender and discriminatory treatment in relation to terms and conditions of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on activities and measures taken or envisaged to provide women with vocational guidance, education and training, and the impact of such measures on women’s access to full, productive, freely chosen and lasting employment. The Committee encourages the Government to develop and implement a policy aimed at ensuring that vocational guidance and training provided to women is available with respect to all occupations.

Persons with disabilities. In its observations, the KCTU notes that sections 6 and 7 of the Minimum Wage Act allows employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage. The KCTU maintains that the Government has granted the requests made by 97.9 per cent of those employers having applied for authorization to pay a worker with disabilities less than the minimum wage, pursuant to the Guide on the Permission of Employers Not to Pay the Minimum Wage to Disabled Workers. The Committee refers to its comments concerning the application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and invites the Government to provide information on measures taken to encourage and enable all workers to access employment opportunities without discrimination. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which sections 6 and 7 of the Minimum Wage Act impact persons with disabilities and how the Government is ensuring the application of equality of opportunities and treatment in the workplace for workers with disabilities.

Article 3(2) and (3). Vocational guidance information. Lifelong learning. The Government reiterates that its online platform, Work-Net, assists people with occupational information and career development advice by providing information on 130 academic departments. Additionally, the Government published 86,000 copies of books on new occupations and 65,000 copies of promotional guidance materials from 2014 to 2017. In its observations, the FKTU maintains that there is a significant shortage of personnel that provide employment support in the public employment service (PES). In its response to the FKTU, the Government acknowledges that, due to factors such as workforce shortages, the functions of job-matching between employers and jobseekers and placement services in PES centres has weakened. To improve the performance of the PES, the Government undertakes to continue its efforts to reinforce infrastructure in order to strengthen the counselling function of the PES centres. It also undertakes to establish and implement an Employment Centre innovation plan to focus on employment support. The Committee invites the Government to continue to supply updated detailed information on the activities of the PES information system, particularly with regard to the development of information and guidance relating to choice of occupation, access to vocational education and training – including lifelong learning – and related educational opportunities to assure the effectiveness of vocational guidance policies. In addition, the Government is requested to provide information on the measures taken to promote quality vocational education and training that is inclusive and available to all.

Article 5. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Government reports that, in 2015, in concluding the Tripartite Jobs Pact, the tripartite partners agreed to establish a Regional Joint-Training Network to develop human resources services tailored to regional needs. Thereafter, 16 Regional Human Resource Development (HRD) Committees were established in metropolitan areas. In July 2015, the local area and industry-specific HRD system was put in place, whose functions include analysing labour market demand and providing for joint training and hiring. The Committee notes the FKTU’s observation that worker representatives do not head any of 16 HRD Committees and that some of the HRD Committees have no worker representatives. In its response, the Government indicates that, as of August 2018, worker representatives have been co-chairing two of the Regional HRD Committees, adding that worker representatives participate in all 16 Committees. The Committee invites the Government to provide more information on the composition of the 16 regional HRD Committees as well as the 17 industry-specific committees. The Committee also invites the Government to provide more information on the manner in which the cooperation of employers’ and workers’ organizations and, where applicable, other interested bodies, is ensured in the formulation and implementation of vocational guidance and vocational training policies and programmes.

The Committee notes the Government’s second and third reports on the application of the Convention. It also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) received by the Office on 31 August 2018. The Committee further notes that the 2016 amendments to the annexes of the Convention entered into force for the Republic of Korea on 8 June 2017. The Committee recalls that these amendments aim at aligning the technical requirements of the Convention with the latest standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with respect to the technology for seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs) provided for in the Convention. In particular, they intend to change the biometric template in SIDs from a fingerprint template in a two dimensional barcode to a facial image stored in a contactless chip as required by ICAO Document 9303.

The Committee notes that, according to the information submitted by the Government in its report, no measures have been taken so far to issue new SIDs in accordance with the technical requirements of the Convention, as amended in 2016. The Committee recalls in this regard the Resolution adopted by the third meeting of the Special Tripartite Committee of the Maritime Labour Convention, as amended (MLC, 2006), whereby it expressed concern about the difficulties seafarers continue to have in accessing shore leave and transiting in certain ports and terminals around the world and recognized that although an increased number of member States have ratified Convention No. 185, there still appear to be problems in ensuring that the Convention works in the way that it was originally intended. The Committee requests the Government to address the issues raised below and to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to issue new SIDs in accordance with the amended version of the Convention.

Article 1. Scope of application. Concerning the definition of seafarers, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the comments made in the framework of the examination of the application, by the Republic of Korea, of Article II(f) of the MLC, 2006. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that cadets are regarded as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection provided for by Convention No. 185.

Articles 3–5. Requirements of the 2016 amendments. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Government had amended its legislation to ensure conformity with the previous version of the Convention, thereby introducing SIDs containing machine-readable biometric data (fingerprint). A biometric recognition system had been developed in 2005 to enable a record of each SID issued, suspended or withdrawn to be stored in an electronic database. The Government indicated however, that, in practice, no SIDs had been issued and no steps had been taken to set up the relevant database, due to an apparent lack of any practical need. It further stated that no independent evaluation of the system for issuing SIDs had been carried out and that it did not intend to apply for its entry into the list of Members meeting the minimum requirements of Article 5(1). The Government also indicated that existing seafarers’ pocketbooks were sufficient for the purposes of verifying the seafarer’s identity and, therefore, there was little reason for a new SID issuance system in the absence of a generalized practice among member States. The Committee requested the Government to transmit copies of the relevant legislation as well as to supply a specimen of the SID issued in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no additional legislative or other measures have been enacted or revised. It also notes that the Government has not supplied a specimen of an SID, but a copy. Noting that no steps have been taken to issue new SIDs in accordance with the amended text of the Convention, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure conformity with Articles 3–5 of the Convention and with the requirements of Annexes I–III, as amended in 2016. It requests the Government to provide relevant information in this regard and to transmit copy of legislation giving effect to the amended version of the Convention.

Article 6. Facilitation of shore leave and transit, and transfer of seafarers. The Committee notes the FKTU observation that the Korean Government’s current practice of restricting the entry and arrival of seafarers carrying valid identity documents for the purposes of protecting national security and fending off unregistered aliens runs contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The FKTU adds that, in particular, the “Joint Directive on the authorization of port entry by ships whose foreign seafarers have disembarked without permission”, adopted on 9 November 2016 by various ministries, the National Intelligence Service, the National Police Agency, the Korea Customs Agency and the Korea Coast Guard, bans the entry into Korean ports of ships whose seafarers have either landed or disembarked their ships in Korea without permission. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) designates the ships barred from Korean ports upon reports from the Immigration Office. The FKTU also indicates that the Korean Government prohibits foreign seafarers from disembarking from ships that are detained at Korean ports due to financial and other reasons. In this regard, it refers to the case of detention of a foreign ship in the Namhang Port in Busan in August 2017, where ten foreign seafarers were forced to stay on board in dire conditions, as the Korean Immigration Office refused to issue temporary shore leave alleging the possibility of their illegal stay in Korea. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 7. Continuous possession. The Committee notes the FKTU’s observation that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Seafarers’ Act requiring seafarers to keep their SIDs in their possession at all times (section 48(5)) and the 2013 “Measures to improve the working conditions of foreign seafarers working on board offshore fishing vessels” (requiring the written consent of seafarers for keeping their SIDs), private shipowners still seize and keep the SIDs of foreign seafarers as long as the latter are required to give their consent on blank paper or on forms in Korean only. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

The Committee notes the observations by the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the response of the Government, both received in 2016.

Articles 2(1), 2(2), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the Convention. Continuous improvement of occupational safety and health (OSH) in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, taking into account the principles set out in relevant ILO instruments, and progressive development and periodic review of the national system. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comments, that it has taken measures, after consultation with the FKTU and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), as well as the Korea Employers Federation (KEF) and the Korea Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, to establish nationally unified safety and health standards, following the principles set out in the ILO instruments, including the OSH Act, the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Regulations of the OSH Act, and rules on OSH standards. It notes with interest in this respect the adoption of the new OSH Act of 2019, which will replace the OSH Act of 1981 (amended) in 2020. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the consultations held in the course of developing the new OSH Act with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. It also requests the Government to provide information on how the principles set out in ILO OSH instruments have been taken into account in the new Act.

Article 3(2). Promoting and advancing the right of workers to a safe and healthy environment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in reply to its previous comment, that discussions held under the Industrial Accident Prevention System Advancement Committee resulted in an agreement to improve industrial accident prevention policies and systems. The Committee notes with interest the key achievements made in the implementation of the agreement, including: (i) the completion of basic OSH education by 175,000 people in the construction sector and new safety indices in that sector; (ii) the expansion of the scope of businesses required to designate safety and health managers and to submit risk and hazard prevention plans; (iii) increased financial support for industrial accident prevention in high-risk micro-enterprises and small construction sites; and (iv) a strengthened OSH inspection system.

Article 3(3). Measures to promote basic OSH principles and to develop a national preventative safety and health culture. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to its previous request for information on the functioning and implementation of the risk assessment system, that the system has been implemented since 2013. The guidelines detailing risk assessment methods and procedures require employers to assign risk assessment duties and roles to managers, supervisors or safety and health managers, and to fulfil their risk assessment obligations with workers’ participation. The Committee notes the role that the Government plays in supervising employers’ risk assessment duties and offering necessary implementation support, including: (i) development and distribution of sector-specific risk assessment models, as well as an internet based risk assessment support system; (ii) support programmes targeting small enterprises; and (iii) promotional campaigns to encourage a safety culture using TV, radio, newspaper or other public advertisements, and social networks. In this respect, the Committee notes the observation made by the FKTU that, despite the Government’s efforts, a large number of workplaces do not carry out risk assessments due to a lack of penalties for non-compliance, and that the participation of workers in risk assessments is low. The Committee notes the Government’s response that it continues to promote the risk assessment system and plans to consider introducing penalties on employers for non-compliance once the system is widely recognized. The Government also indicates that in 2016, a survey was carried out to understand the overall status of risk assessment compliance at enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on compliance with risk assessment requirements including the results of the survey carried out, and to indicate any further measures taken or envisaged to promote the risk assessment system, including in the context of the new OSH Act.

Article 4(3)(e) and (f). Research on OSH. Mechanisms for the collection and analysis of data on occupational injuries and diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA), in the context of the Agreement on the Industrial Accident Prevention System Advancement carried out an analysis of the causes of industrial accidents, based on questionnaires submitted by employers following changes in 2014 to the industrial accident reporting system. The Government also indicates that networks between KOSHA branches and occupational health agencies have been built and there has been an increase in the Agency’s financial and human resources so as to expand its policy research capacity.

In this respect, the Committee notes the observation made by the FKTU that the industrial accident reporting system has not been properly put in place due to a lack of publicity and interest from employers. The union also states that the analysis of industrial accidents based on the questionnaires has not been released, and that the KOSHA continues to suffer from a shortage of researchers which hinders timely delivery of research projects. According to the FKTU, the occupational disease evaluation monitoring system has not been functioning. The Committee notes the Government’s response that it has strengthened its promotion of the industrial accident reporting system. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the strengthening of mechanisms for the collection and analysis of data on occupational injuries and diseases, including measures to ensure the functioning of the occupational disease evaluation monitoring and industrial accident reporting systems.

Article 4(2)(b). Functions and responsibilities of the Government in respect of OSH. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to its previous request, that the central safety management committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and comprises the Ministers of safety-related Ministries, is responsible for coordination between different Ministries. The Government indicates that other coordination meetings have been held, such as joint public–private meetings chaired by the Prime Minister. The Government also indicates that there has been a net increase in the number of KOSHA employees: by 98 in 2014, 40 in 2015 and 41 in 2016 respectively. The Committee notes this information.

Article 4(2)(c). Mechanisms for ensuring compliance. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that in the area of OSH, one industrial safety inspector was in charge of approximately 6,900 workplaces and 54,000 workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in response that, 21 more OSH inspectors had been recruited for the 2013–16 period. It also notes that the Ministry of Employment and Labour (MoEL) has been reinforcing OSH inspections through assigning inspectors with technical qualifications in natural sciences and engineering. With regard to the operation of the labour inspectorate, the Committee refers to its comments in 2019 concerning the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Article 4(2)(d). Cooperation between management, workers and their representatives. The Committee previously noted the FKTU’s observations that the majority of industrial accidents occur in SMEs with less than 50 workers and requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure cooperation between management and workers and/or their representatives irrespective of the size of the business. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication in response that, following changes to the Enforcement Decree of the OSH Act, businesses with 50 employees or more in nine high-risk sectors are required to establish an OSH committee (previously this applied to workplaces with more than 100 workers), as are those with 300 or more employees in ten low risk sectors, and businesses with more than 12 billion South Korean won (KRW) in construction costs. Noting the Government’s report that more than 80 per cent of total accidents occur in workplaces with fewer than 50 workers, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure cooperation between management and workers and/or their representatives in small enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate any further measures taken or envisaged to strengthen cooperation between management and workers and/or their representatives in the context of the new OSH Act.

Article 4(3)(h). OSH in micro-enterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and in the informal economy. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to reinforce the responsibility of contractors vis-à-vis their subcontractors’ workers as well as initiatives aimed to improve OSH conditions in SMEs and in the informal economy. It notes the Government’s indication in response that the revision of the OSH Act and its enforcement regulations will expand employers’ obligations with respect to principal contractors, and will require workplaces with 50 workers to appoint a safety and health manager. The Committee also notes the targeted financial support and OSH technical support offered by the Government for firms with fewer than 50 employees (where most industrial accidents occur), including spending nearly 90 per cent of KOSHA’s programme expenditure supporting micro-businesses. The Committee also notes with interest the Government’s initiative to introduce targeted proactive inspections for businesses with fewer than 20 workers to prevent accidents, from which 500 businesses benefited in 2015. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the support mechanisms for improving OSH conditions in micro-enterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the informal economy and to provide information on the legislative provisions adopted expanding the obligations of employers with respect to contractors as the coverage of safety and health managers.

Article 5. National OSH programme. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 4th five-year Industrial Accident Prevention Plan (2015–19) was adopted through extensive consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations as well as OSH experts, including the members of the Occupational Safety and Health Expert Committee and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Prevention Deliberation Committee under the terms of section 8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Committee notes that this Plan includes specific action towards, among others: (i) strengthening principal contractors’ OSH responsibilities; (ii) expanding the scope of dangerous machinery and tools subject to OSH inspection and the establishment of an integrated information system; (iii) strengthening OSH support in the construction industry; (iv) reinforcing OSH governance through strengthened penalties; and (v) reinforcing the OSH education system. It notes that the Industrial Accident Prevention Plan (2015–19) sets a target of reducing the fatality rate per 10,000 workers from 0.71 per cent in 2013 to 0.30 per cent by 2019. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved under the 2015–19 Industrial Accident Prevention Plan with regard to the targets and indicators of progress established. It requests the Government to provide information on the evaluation carried out of this Plan, in consultation with the social partners, and on how this evaluation contributes to the formulation of the Industrial Accident Prevention Plan for the subsequent period.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data (disaggregated by gender, age, and type of industry) on the application of the Convention in practice, including the number, and the nature and cause of occupational accidents and diseases.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Republic of Korea

Adopted by the CEACR in 2022

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C135 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C019 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C131 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C142 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Republic of Korea

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2022

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C135 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C019 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C131 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C142 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)