[fn Editorial] The Flawed Yellow Envelope Act Must Be Supplemented to Prevent Major Confusion

The business community is growing increasingly concerned about the Yellow Envelope Act (amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), which is set to take effect next March. Since the ruling party pushed the Yellow Envelope Act through the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on its own, there is no legal way to reject it. Companies must prepare for labor issues in line with the law as they develop next year's management plans. However, a closer look reveals that the law is riddled with loopholes. A commissioned study by the Economic, Social and Labor Council (ESLC), titled 'Key Issues and Tasks of Collective Labor Relations Law: A Comparative Legal Review,' also points out fundamental flaws in the bill. The main issue, echoed by the business sector, is the lack of specificity.
The most serious problem is the omission of a procedure for unifying bargaining channels. While the bill expands the definition of 'employer' to include the principal contractor, it fails to specify how bargaining channels should be consolidated.
If the law is implemented as is, the field will descend into chaos. There will be no clear standard for conducting negotiations, nor a way to determine whether to unify the bargaining channels of principal and subcontractor unions. The research team added that the current law and its enforcement decrees provide no guidance on this matter. Therefore, this issue should be addressed either in the enforcement decree or through supplementary legislation.
A comparison with the legal systems of major countries such as Japan, the United States (U.S.), Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK) raises further concerns, as the Yellow Envelope Act is even more restrictive. None of the countries surveyed have legislation that limits the right to claim damages for illegal strikes. In fact, their laws stipulate that workers or groups participating in unjustified strikes are liable for damages. This means the Yellow Envelope Act is moving in the opposite direction of international standards.
The expanded definition of 'worker' under the trade union law is another issue raised by the business sector. Mixing wage workers and non-wage workers undermines the coherence of the legal system. This is precisely why other countries do not recognize all service providers as workers under their laws.
The government has also acknowledged that the full implementation of the Yellow Envelope Act could cause confusion. It has stated its intention to ensure a smooth rollout during the remaining period. However, judging by the government's current level of preparation, it seems the Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) intends to address the issue with guidelines or manuals. Yet, such guidelines have no legal force. No matter how clear the guidelines are, if either labor or management objects, negotiations could collapse and immediately escalate to litigation.
Therefore, the remaining period before the law takes effect must be used to thoroughly supplement the Yellow Envelope Act. Since the law has already passed the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, at minimum, legislative coherence must be ensured. Procedures for unifying bargaining channels should be clarified, the definition of 'employer' made more specific, and the limits of damage claim restrictions for illegal strikes clearly defined. The passive mindset of relying solely on guidelines or manuals must be abandoned, and, if necessary, supplementary legislation should be enacted to provide legal force.
Of course, the problems with amending the trade union law cannot be solved by legal revisions alone. Without changes in public perception, not just among labor and management but also among the general public, social conflict will inevitably arise. Efforts to improve the completeness of the bill must go hand in hand with building social consensus. The burden of poorly drafted legislation should not be shifted onto companies and the public.