Labor-Management Autonomy through Collective Bargaining
Bongsoo Jung (Korean labor attorney, KangNam Labor Law Firm)

I. Introduction
In labor law, the working conditions of employees are to be determined by the employment contract, through the free will of both the employee and the employer on equal footing (Article 4 of the Labor Standards Act). This determination of individual working conditions applies equally in collective labor relations. The employer and the labor union determine “the standards concerning working conditions and other treatment of workers” through a collective agreement (Article 30 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). A collective agreement that sets out working conditions through agreement between labor and management is regarded as a higher-level provision than employment rules or individual employment contracts. The reason for this is that the collective agreement represents consensus between labor and management in establishing the working conditions, while employment rules and employment contracts may not.
On July 24, 2025, a foreign-affiliated company (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) held a collective agreement signing ceremony with its labor union. The collective bargaining process, which had begun in November 2024, resulted in a compromise between labor and management nine months later and finally a collective agreement. In order to obtain the right to strike, the labor union accepted mediation by the Labor Relations Commission and planned to conduct a vote among its own members to find out whether there was enough support for a strike. Before the union voted on whether to strike, the Korean branch manager of the Company requested a collective bargaining session attended by the director of the Company. At that point, the branch manager proposed that the Company would concede to the “red line” provisions stipulated in the collective agreement as demanded by the labor union, in return for reaching an agreement on the remaining provisions. The labor union accepted this proposal outright, and as a result, the parties were able to reach a final agreement on the few remaining contentious provisions in the collective bargaining process.
The Company established its Korean branch in the year 2000 and currently employs 500 workers. The labor union was founded in 2010 and consists of 300 union members, making up more than half of the total employees. Over the past 10 years, the labor union and the Company have maintained an amicable relationship without a single strike. In 2024, after the previous head of the human resources (HR) team retired, a new HR team leader took office, and a new executive board of the labor union was also formed. The newly appointed HR team leader had the collective agreement translated into English and reported it to the US headquarters for the first time. Upon review, the HR director at the headquarters recognized that the current collective agreement excessively infringed upon personnel management rights and deemed that a substantial revision was necessary. The previous HR team leader had concluded the collective agreement by accepting almost all of the labor union’s demands in order to maintain a harmonious relationship with the union. Consequently, the Company sought advisory services from an external labor law firm to prepare for collective bargaining aimed at restoring personnel management rights.
This article aims to understand the process of concluding the collective agreement between labor and management and the labor-management autonomy system achieved through collective agreement.

II. Proceedings Leading to Conclusion of a New Collective Agreement
(1) The newly appointed HR team leader had the current collective agreement translated into English and reported it to the headquarters’ HR team. The HR director at headquarters found that the current collective agreement contained numerous provisions that undesirably restricted personnel management rights. In addition, the scope of labor union membership was too broad, allowing all employees to join the union except for employees at the department head level and those in the HR, secretary, and finance departments. To address these issues, the Company, through a delegation for collective bargaining, sought advisory services from an external labor law firm.
(2) In November 2024, the Company and the labor union held their first introductory meeting for collective bargaining between labor and management, during which each side presented their proposals for the collective agreement. Up until then, only the labor union had presented proposals for the collective agreement, and the Company had never submitted its own proposal first. For this reason, the labor union’s bargaining team expressed surprise at the Company’s submission of a collective agreement proposal, which was based on three fundamental objectives: First, to minimize restrictions on the Company’s inherent personnel management rights; Second, to reduce the excessive number of provisions in the current collective agreement of 120 articles; and Third, to narrow the scope of labor union membership.
(3) The Company’s bargaining team believed that, based on the precedent of amicably concluding collective agreements with the labor union over the past 10 years, collective bargaining could be completed within one to three months. However, in reality, they were unable to reach an agreement on items related to personnel management rights. Over the course of six months, labor and management held 14 rounds of collective bargaining, and through a review of the 120 articles in the existing collective agreement, they agreed on 100. However, with 20 articles remaining, collective bargaining reached a deadlock. At that point, the HR director from the headquarters proposed visiting Korea to negotiate directly with the labor union president and bring the matter to a close. The HR director from headquarters suggested resolving the issue in the following order: ① Reduce the scope of union membership; ② Recognize the free hiring of non-regular workers; and ③ Maintain the existing collective agreement. However, the labor union rejected the Company’s proposal and criticized the requests of the Company as unilateral demands.
(4) In May 2025, the Company delegated its collective bargaining authority to an external certified labor attorney as the collective bargaining representative, and proceeded with collective bargaining on the remaining provisions. Following this, in May and June 2025, 10 additional provisions were agreed upon through collective bargaining. However, the labor union declared a suspension of collective bargaining, stating that it could not afford to spend more time, and filed for mediation with the Labor Relations Commission. At the mediation meeting of the Labor Relations Commission, the Company actively requested collective bargaining with the labor union on the premise that a strike (industrial action) must be prevented.
Although the mediators at the mediation meeting proposed to prioritize the remaining 10 articles in the collective agreement and proceed with bargaining accordingly, there was no progress in the full session. As a result, the mediators attempted to induce an agreement on the key contentious provisions through a one-on-one meeting between the Company’s chief negotiator and the labor union president. However, a final agreement on the mediation proposal failed at the Labor Relations Commission, and a breakdown of the mediation proposal was declared.
(5) In July 2025, the labor union announced the convening of a general meeting of union members and set a date for a vote on whether to go on strike. At the Company’s request, collective bargaining was resumed before the strike, but no agreement was reached. In response, the branch manager requested a final round of collective bargaining with the labor union the day before the strike vote.
At this additional bargaining session, the Company’s bargaining team expressed its positive acceptance of the red line items demanded by the labor union. The Company’s softened proposal paved the way for progress towards a collective agreement. The Company agreed to the following demands from the labor union: ① A concession on the scope of labor union participation, and ② Delete the provision stating that reasons for disciplinary action would follow the employment rules. As the labor union also accepted other provisions, the two parties were able to conclude a new collective agreement.
In the following section, we will examine the key contentious provisions and compromises in the collective bargaining process.

III. Key Contentious Provisions of the Collective Agreement and Compromises Proposed
There were six major points of contention between labor and management during collective bargaining. These were mostly related to the Company’s personnel management rights. Although such rights are inherent to a Company, if they are deemed to be closely related to the working conditions of employees, they can be restricted through a collective agreement. The positions of labor and management and the parts on which they reached agreement for each key contentious provision in the collective bargaining are as follows:
First, union membership eligibility for managers.
Previously, the Company excluded only those at the director level or above, and those in the human resources, finance, and secretarysection from union membership. However, the labor union demanded that eligibility be expanded from “director level or above” to “department head level or above.” The labor union argued that, regardless of job title, all employees should be able to join the union except those who, in practice, have managerial authority.
The breakthrough in the collective agreement was made when the branch manager, who attended just before the labor union’s vote on a strike, accepted the labor union’s proposal regarding the scope of union membership.
Second, retaining the disciplinary reasons stipulated in the employment rules within the collective agreement.
The previous collective agreement contained clauses such as “employees to whom Article ○○ of the employment rules applies,” thereby making disciplinary actions subject to the disciplinary reasons specified in the employment rules. In response, the labor union, citing a “special directive from the higher-level organization,” insisted on deleting the reference to “matters stipulated in the employment rules” from the list of reasons for disciplinary action, and declared that no disciplinary action could be taken except for the reasons listed in the collective agreement. As a compromise, the Company managed to push through a revised version replacing the employment rules with a general phrase: “in cases of violation of important laws and regulations related to safety, security, ethics, and compliance.”
Third, equal representation by labor and management in the disciplinary committee.
The existing collective agreement stated: “The disciplinary committee shall be composed of an equal number of members, up to three persons each from labor and management. The disciplinary committee shall make decisions with a majority attendance from each side (labor and management) and approval by a majority of the attending members. In the case of a tie vote, the representative director shall decide.” Regarding this provision, the Company argued that it was practically difficult to implement any disciplinary measures against employees because even minor disciplinary actions against them required a disciplinary committee to meet, composed of equal members from labor and management. The Company proposed replacing the clause with: “One person from the labor union may participate as a member of the disciplinary committee.” However, due to opposition from the labor union, the existing disciplinary committee clause was essentially left as it was in the collective agreement.
Fourth, the need to obtain the labor union’s consent to hire fixed-term workers.
The existing collective agreement stipulates: “Even when temporarily replacing workers for ongoing tasks for a short period due to business necessity, such hiring must be agreed upon with the labor union, for workers hired for up to two years.” Due to this clause, the Company was unable to add staff even when business needs temporarily increased, unless it had obtained the agreement of the labor union. The Company requested that this clause be revised from “agreement with the labor union” to “consultation with the labor union.” However, despite the Company’s persistent efforts to persuade, the labor union ultimately did not agree to the revised proposal, and the clause in the existing collective agreement had to be maintained.
Fifth, the collective agreement contains all provisions related to the labor-management council.
The existing collective agreement states: “The convening of the labor-management council, reporting matters, consultation matters, resolution matters, and decisions of the labor-management council shall have the same effect as the collective agreement.” Of these, the consultation items such as: “1. Matters delegated by the collective agreement,” and “2. Matters related to the enactment, amendment, or rescinding of work rules and various Company regulations”— could impose undesirable burdens on the Company. In response, the Company requested that all content related to the labor-management council be deleted and replaced with: “The labor-management council shall be convened in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.” However, the labor union rejected this
Ultimately, through dialogue between labor and management, a compromise was reached by inserting the phrase “in accordance with the Act on the Promotion of Employees’ Participation and Cooperation” into the provisions related to the labor-management council, so that the operation would follow the intent of the council as provided by law.
Sixth, the clause prohibiting wage reductions and the related labor-management agreement clause.
The existing collective agreement states: “When the Company lowers ordinary wages due to staffing transfers, changes to the wage system and organizational structure, reduced working hours, productivity declines, or management deterioration based on Company needs, such decisions must be made in advance through agreement with the labor union.” Regarding this clause, the Company wished to revise “agreement with the labor union” to “consultation with the labor union.” However, in this case as well, the Company conceded, and the existing clause was maintained in the collective agreement.

IV. Results of the On-Site Collective Bargaining
1. Infringement on Personnel Management Rights
When the collective agreement contains provisions restricting the exercise of personnel management rights, the Company’s personnel actions become invalid unless the Company obtains the labor union’s consent or follows the necessary procedures as stipulated in the collective agreement. For example, the disciplinary committee must be convened with equal representation from labor and management, and disciplinary action can only be taken with a majority vote of approval. Because of such strict procedures, even in cases of minor misconduct by employees where minor disciplinary action is needed, the process is so cumbersome that the Company often gives up on pursuing discipline.
As reviewed above, equal representation in the disciplinary procedures, requiring prior consent from the labor union for the hiring of non-regular workers, and the obligation to obtain prior agreement from the labor union in order to reduce wages due to business necessity—all represent severe infringements of the Company’s inherent personnel management rights. Nevertheless, the Company was concerned about the economic losses that could result from the labor union going on strike. For this reason, even while recognizing the serious infringement on its personnel management rights, the Company was unable to revise the relevant parts of the existing collective agreement and ultimately maintained them as they were.

2. Compromise in Collective Bargaining through the Decision of the Branch Manager
Through the above collective bargaining process, the Company made considerable effort to revise or delete the clauses that infringed on its personnel management rights. However, the labor union, while taking the necessary steps to exercise its right to strike—an inherent right under the collective agreement—rejected the Company’s proposed amendments. The Labor Relations Commission then served as mediator, and the labor union proceeded to hold a general meeting of union members, which is the final step before voting on whether to go on strike. At this point, from the perspective of the Korean branch manager, a managerial judgment had to be made—whether it was more important for the Company to restore its personnel management rights and therefore undergo a strike, or avoid the strike by maintaining the current collective agreement provisions since the current situation was not seriously affecting business operations. Ultimately, the branch manager requested a final round of collective bargaining the day before the union voted on whether to strike. At that meeting, the Company withdrew its demands to revise the clauses in the collective agreement that infringed upon personnel management rights. In response, the labor union also withdrew its intent to vote on a strike and agreed to resume normal business operations.

3. Role and Evaluation of the Labor Attorney as Bargaining Representative
The labor attorney explained to the Company’s HR director that the Company’s personnel management rights were significantly infringed upon in the existing collective agreement and that, if the Company could withstand the threatened strike, it would be better to take this opportunity to restore its rights. The labor attorney was then given the authority to engage in collective bargaining, during which he was to explain to the labor union the provisions that infringed upon personnel management rights and to strive to restore those rights to the Company.
For its part, the labor union felt that it could not surrender what it saw as the basic rights of its union members, which had been secured through collective agreement over the past 20 years. On June 4, 2025, during the 17th bargaining session, the labor union declared a breakdown of collective bargaining and filed for mediation with the Labor Relations Commission. Rather than continuing to push for the restoration of personnel management rights during mediation, the Company engaged in the meeting in a way that accepted the union’s positions, mainly to prevent a strike. In the end, labor and management failed to reach a “final agreement” during the Labor Relations Commission’s mediation session, and as a result, the mediation collapsed, giving the labor union a foothold to proceed with strike procedures. Through this collective bargaining process, the Company did not restore its personnel management rights but instead reached an agreement that acknowledged the labor union’s vested rights. This round of collective bargaining was an opportunity for the Company to reorganize the entire collective agreement, but the outcome was somewhat disappointing as the Company’s core—and legitimate—objectives were not reached.

V. Conclusion – Implications Gained Through Collective Bargaining
On-site collective bargaining between labor and management is a process in which both sides negotiate collectively over working conditions to produce an acceptable collective agreement. In this case described herein, it can be seen that the labor union was able to preserve some of its previously secured vested interests. As a labor attorney, I was delegated by the Company to act as its bargaining representative and carried out the process accordingly. But rather than confronting the threat of a strike head-on, the Company—ultimately through the decision of the Korean branch manager—chose to focus on avoiding losses from a strike and let go of its aim to restore its personnel management rights.
However, even this disappointing outcome reflected a strategic approach by the Company to negotiations, in avoiding a destructive strike while maintaining overall balance of power between labor and management. In this collective bargaining case, labor and management ultimately finalized the collective agreement through negotiation rather than confrontation and conflict, which is a reflection of the principle of labor-management autonomy.