A Case Study on Collective Bargaining by a
University Cleaning Workers’ Union and Its Practical Implications for
Labor-Management Relations in 2026

Bongsoo Jung /
Korean labor attorney

I. Introduction
(Summary)

On May 27, 2014, a signing ceremony was held
for a collective bargaining agreement between a certain university (hereinafter
referred to as “the University”) and the University janitors’ labor union
(hereinafter referred to as “the Labor Union”). As representatives of both the
Labor Union and the University management signed the collective agreement, it
marked an end to the labor disputes that had continued for more than a year and
established a new employment relationship. In this article, I would like to
review the content of the collective agreement, and the reasons why it took
such a long time, in the anticipation of some lessons against making the same
mistakes in the next collective bargaining sessions.

In July 2013 when the University had
difficulty negotiating with the newly established Labor Union, it gave this
labor attorney authority to negotiate on its behalf. The University janitorial
staff were employed as regular employees from an outsourcing company on March
1, 2013. The University and the Labor Union began collective bargaining at the
time, but this devolved into labor disputes that involved the Labor Commission until
May, 2013. The University explained to this labor attorney that since there were
no items the two parties could agree on, I could start the collective
bargaining from the beginning. After drafting and obtaining University approval
for a counter-proposal to the Labor Union’s collective agreement proposal (80
articles), I was ready for collective bargaining. 

 The two
parties’ negotiating teams began their bargaining sessions on July 16, 2013.
The Labor Union’s negotiating team was composed of seven persons: two union
officers from the umbrella union (the Seoul and Gyeonggi branch of the Korean
Public & Social Services and Translation Workers’ Union), three union
officers from the janitor’s union, and two observers from the building
management team (outsourced workers at that time). The University negotiating team
consisted of three persons: this labor attorney as the chief negotiator, a team
leader in charge of general affairs, and the staff member responsible for
managing the cleaning services on campus. During the first negotiating session,
when the University team submitted the counter-proposal to the Labor Union, the
Labor Union showed in the collective bargaining minutes that the previous
University bargaining representative had already agreed to 50 of the 80 items. The
previous University representative who was in charge of cleaning services
explained that he had just signed the meeting minutes without approval from his
superiors as the Labor Union had assured him that the meeting minutes could
change at a later time. This labor attorney then told the Labor Union that the
meeting minutes that the previous University representative had signed were of agreements
that the University could never accept, and any agreements made were mistakes
by the staff member who had signed the minutes. I then requested that the
meeting minutes be officially determined as void. 

For this action, the
Labor Union filed a complaint with the Labor Office against the University
president, the general manager, a team leader in
charge of general affairs, and the new chief negotiator (this labor attorney)
for unfair labor practice in early August 2013. The Labor Union took several
actions in protest including a press conference, a one-person picket of City
Hall, a regular Wednesday sit-in protest at the University headquarters, and a
slowdown of cleaning services. The chief Union negotiator took to tearing up
the University’s counter-proposal at the bargaining table, and throwing his hot
coffee at the team leader in charge of general affairs for being late to one of
the collective bargaining sessions.

In November, after investigation, the Labor
Office found there to be no evidence of unfair labor practice by the University
declaring the two meeting minutes void, and threw out the Labor Union’s
complaint. After this, the Labor Union demanded that there be no discrimination
between the university labor unions, and that the University should allow this
Labor Union’s activities as it allowed other unions their activities. The
University accepted some of the Labor Union’s demands, and both parties managed
to reach agreement on 20 items, including union activities. 

In February 2014, major disputes moved on to
job security, protection of union activities, and allowance of paid time off
for one full-time union officer. In terms of job security, the Labor Union
demanded extension of the retirement age to 70 (instead of the current 65 years
of age), in light of over 20 union members expecting to have to retire at the
end of the year if this was not done. When the University rejected the demand
to extend retirement age to 70, the Labor Union began taking action on February
29, 2014, hanging up approximately 30 banners around the campus, and setting up
a tent at a building near the main gate to engage in a sit-in strike at the
tent.
  By April 1, 2014, the number of union
members had dropped to just half of the total janitorial staff. In this
worsening situation, the Labor Union had to withdraw their demand for extension
of the retirement age to 70, and instead accepted that the University would
work to protect job security. As the Labor Union could not perform union
activities for a long time without a collective agreement, it seems to have decided
that the next best alternative was to accept realistic measures. The Labor
Union then suggested to the University that a working level negotiating team be
formed to draw up a collective agreement as soon as possible, which the
University accepted. This working-level team consisted of three members of the
Labor Union and three University representatives. The working level negotiating
teams reached agreement on all remaining items and finalized the collective
agreement.

II. Rejection of Meeting Minutes & Unfair Labor
Practice

When a labor union was established for the
janitorial workers and demanded a collective agreement, the University
appointed the staff member in charge of cleaning services as its collective
bargaining representative. This particular staff member had no experience negotiating
with labor unions before, and as the Labor Union repeatedly asked him to sign
the meeting minutes, he did so simply to confirm that he had negotiated with
the Labor Union. When this labor attorney, in preparations for collective
bargaining, reviewed the contents of the signed meeting minutes, there were
many articles that the University must not accept in any situation. Some
examples:

“Anyone engaging in unfair labor practice as
defined in Article 81 of the Labor Union Act shall be subject to disciplinary
action.”

“The Disciplinary Action Committee shall
consist of 4 representatives from the Labor Union and 4 from the University.
Half or more of the Disciplinary Action Committee shall be present, and consent
from a majority of those present is required before disciplinary action can be taken.”

The University also disagreed with such requirements
as it needing approval from the Labor Union when handling many different personnel
issues.

For these reasons, the University could not
accept the meeting minutes. In addition to filinga
complaint againstall negotiating team members of the
University including the University president for unfair labor practice, the
Labor Union also demanded the replacement of this labor attorney as University
negotiating team representative.          

The Labor Union delayed collective bargaining
until the Labor Office determined there was insufficient evidence of unfair
labor practice by the University, and dismissed the case on November 27, 2013.

III. Issue Related to Extension of the Retirement Age

When the janitorial workers were employed by the
outsourcing company, there were no regulations regarding retirement age, but upon
direct hiring by the University in March 2013, the University’s retirement age
regulations became applicable. Their wages also increased considerably because
they received the service fees normally paid to the outsourcing company, and other
working conditions like welfare benefits improved as well. However, as the
retirement age had recently been set at 65 (although the University allowed
application for two years’ delay in mandatory retirement), 22 of the
approximately 60 janitorial staff were due to retire at the end of 2014 in
accordance with retirement regulations. The Labor Union demanded extension of the
retirement age to 70, but as the University received a subsidy for janitors’
wages from Seoul city government, this was impossible without the city
government changing its policy. The Labor Union had to accept the fact that the
University could not agree to any extension of the retirement age without the
consent of the city government, and on April 1, 2014, withdrew this demand, accepting
that the University would seek to provide job security.  

IV. Articles Related to Personnel & Managerial Rights

Articles related to personnel and managerial
rights refer to an employer’s authority to make decisions affecting personnel, such
as determining regulations on working hours, work place, work assignments, and disciplinary
action, etc. It would be an infringement of its personnel and managerial rights
if a company were to be required through inclusion in the collective agreement such
conditions as needing prior agreement from or advance consultation with the labor
union, or having to seek the labor union’s opinion before making such decisions.
When the Labor Union in question requested collective bargaining, many of the articles
they presented infringed on these employer rights. However, at the end of the
day, many of these demands were moderated.

V. Conclusion (Evaluation of the Collective Bargaining
Process)

Generally, collective bargaining with new
labor unions results in many disputes, and the situation in this article was no
exception. When beginning these particular collective bargaining sessions, I followed
two principles: 1) the collective agreement shall not infringe on the
employer’s personnel and managerial rights; and 2) the collective agreement
shall create an employment situation that is sustainable for the University
later.

There were three major issues in the course
of the collective bargaining. The first issue was that by signing the meeting
minutes, the former University representative agreed on 50 of the proposed
items from the Labor Union before this Labor Attorney came to represent the
University as chief negotiator. This mistake by the previous representative
resulted in extended conflict between labor and management when the original
meeting minutes were rejected: the Labor Union filed a complaint against the responsible
University managers for unfair labor practice, which also served to delay the
collective bargaining process as both sides had to wait for a decision from the
Labor Office. The second issue was the Labor Union demanding extension of the
retirement age from 65 to 70. When this was refused, the Labor Union hung about
30 protest banners around the campus and staged a sit-in protest in a tent at
one of the gates. Since any changes to the retirement age required city
government approval, the University could not agree to this demand, even though
it was understood that this demand arose from the fact that 20 of the 60 employees
were supposed to retire by the end of 2014. The third issue was the infringement
of the employer’s personnel and managerial rights, which was the strategy the Labor
Union used to protect jobs. In practice, when an employer allows such rights to
be restricted in the collective agreement, labor disputes increase and rifts in
labor-management relations arise.

Although a reasonable collective agreement
between the University and the Labor Union was ultimately concluded, one major
problem was the length of time it took: 15 months. There were two reasons for
this. Firstly, the Labor Union involved the umbrella union at the bargaining
table, resulting in the first draft proposal containing many items that
infringed on the employer’s personnel and managerial rights, and demands for
working conditions and union activities beyond what the University could afford
to accept. Secondly, the University had no specialized staff with the knowledge
of labor laws necessary for dealing with a labor union. As the Labor Union
received professional support from its umbrella union, the University decided
to hire an outside labor specialist for the professional legal support they
lacked. Due to a failure to cooperate and compromise, the Labor Union and the
University were unable to conclude a collective agreement except after labor
disputes and a significant amount of time and effort.  

Despite the aforementioned problems, the
final collective agreement was accepted by both parties. The Labor Union was
recognized as a labor union, receiving an office and workers’ lounges, paid
time-off for union activities, and additional off-days, etc. For its part, the
University also views the outcome as a success, as it was able to protect its personnel
and managerial rights as an employer, and sign a sustainable collective
agreement. It is desirable that the resulting agreement, concluded after much
struggle, will play a pivotal role in maintaining peace between labor and
management, and allow both parties to base their labor relations on a win-win
situation.