Weekly Contributions

The Unpaid Wages Case Involving 339 Election Campaign Workers

Bongsoo Jung, Labor Attorney at Kangnam Labor Law Firm

 

I. Introduction

On the evening of July 9, 2010, a candidate who had lost an election for provincial superintendent of education visited Kangnam Labor Law Firm with a representative of his campaign workers. Although the election was over, wages totaling KRW 247,485,920 remained unpaid to 339 campaign workers. Their campaign had lasted only 13 days, from May 20 to June 1, 2010. Yet the people who had supported street rallies and made promotional telephone calls during those two weeks had still not received their promised compensation.

The candidate had planned to settle the wages using approximately KRW 2 billion in election-expense reimbursements expected on July 30. However, other election-related creditors had sought provisional attachments totaling more than three times the anticipated reimbursement, making payment from those funds difficult. The central issue was therefore no longer simply whether money was owed. It was this: “Are election campaign workers employees under the Labor Standards Act?” The answer could determine their legal standing in obtaining confirmation of unpaid wages and participating in the distribution of attached assets.

At first, the labor inspector reserved judgment on whether the campaign workers qualified as employees. The labor attorney handling the case focused on demonstrating that these were not unpaid volunteers motivated solely by political convictions, but people who had worked for agreed daily pay under direction and supervision. On July 30, 2010, the competent labor office ultimately issued a certificate confirming the unpaid wages, which could then be submitted to the court. This outcome established the wage claims for the relevant procedure; however, the original case materials do not establish how much the workers ultimately recovered through distribution.

 

II. Facts of the Case

1. The 339 campaign workers served at the election office of a provincial superintendent-of-education candidate in the fifth nationwide local elections held on June 2, 2010. They worked from May 20 to June 1 and consisted of 37 local campaign office managers and 302 general campaign staff.

2. The candidate personally recruited, directed, and supervised the local office managers. General campaign staff were recruited through and supervised by those managers. The agreed daily pay at the time was KRW 70,000 for general staff and KRW 90,000 for local office managers. These amounts were specific to the 2010 case and should not be understood as the applicable election-worker allowance rates in 2026.

3. Local office managers were assigned to designated cities, counties, and districts. General campaign staff supported rallies on busy streets during commuting hours and made calls to acquaintances and other contacts during the day to promote the candidate. Duties and locations were assigned systematically, and the workers performed their activities under direction and supervision.

 

III. Legal Analysis of the Campaign Workers’ Employee Status

1. Employee status depends on the actual working relationship, not the job title

Whether a person is an employee under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act cannot be determined solely by the title of a contract or registration as campaign staff. The assessment turns on whether the person provides labor for wages in a subordinate relationship with a business or workplace. Relevant considerations include who determines the work, whether working hours and locations are prescribed, whether specific instructions and supervision are exercised, whether the work can be delegated to someone else, and whether compensation is paid in return for the labor itself (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da27035, September 11, 2008, among others).

In this case, the campaign office’s organized assignments, direction and supervision through local office managers, fixed daily rates, and actual performance of work over 13 days supported employee status. The absence of a written employment contract did not, in itself, preclude such status.

 

2. An election campaign office may constitute a workplace under the Labor Standards Act

The temporary and political nature of election campaigning does not automatically exclude it from the Labor Standards Act. In a case involving a National Assembly candidate who established an election office and hired campaign staff on a daily-wage basis to conduct promotional activities under the candidate’s direction and supervision, the Supreme Court held that the election office could constitute a workplace under the Act and that the staff could qualify as employees (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9218, October 26, 2007).

The Busan District Court also upheld a lower court ruling imposing criminal liability for unpaid wages where a candidate maintained that campaign workers were volunteers, but the actual circumstances showed employment (Busan District Court Decision 2009No3338, December 3, 2009). Nevertheless, the status of each campaign worker must be assessed in light of that person’s agreement, activities, and degree of direction and supervision.

 

3. Election-law allowances and wages under the Labor Standards Act require separate analysis

Article 135 of the Public Official Election Act regulates allowances and reimbursement of expenses for election personnel, as well as restrictions on payments connected with election campaigning. The fact that an individual may lawfully receive an allowance under election law is relevant to the employee-status analysis, but it does not automatically make every allowance recipient an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Conversely, designation as election campaign staff does not, by itself, negate employee status. The actual subordinate working relationship and the nature of the compensation must be considered together.

 

4. Deadlines for unpaid wages and priority of wage claims

Upon termination of employment, an employer must, in principle, settle wages and other amounts due within 14 days (Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act). The deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties where special circumstances exist. However, delays in election-expense reimbursement or provisional attachments by other creditors do not, in themselves, extinguish the obligation to pay.

Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act also provides priority for wage claims and grants special preferential status to certain claims, including wages for the final three months of employment. In an actual distribution proceeding, however, the nature of the claim, the scope of statutory priority, available assets, and the applicable attachment and distribution procedures must be examined separately. The issuance of a certificate confirming unpaid wages does not guarantee full recovery.

 

IV. Conclusion and Practical Implications

 

The campaign workers in this case were not merely individuals who had gathered to support a particular candidate. They worked at assigned locations under the campaign organization’s instructions and expected to receive agreed daily wages in return. The labor office’s issuance of certificates confirming unpaid wages for 339 workers was a significant recognition of the substantive working relationship behind an activity that outwardly appeared political.

Candidates and campaign managers should establish clear terms when recruiting staff, including duties, working days and hours, allowance or wage rates, reporting lines, and payment dates. They should also preserve work and payment records. After the election, outstanding payments should be settled promptly regardless of whether election-expense reimbursements have been received. Workers, for their part, should retain attendance records, assignment schedules, instruction messages, compensation agreements, and bank records.

An election is won or lost on polling day, but the wage obligations owed to those who worked during the campaign do not disappear when voting ends. The lasting lesson of this case is straightforward: the substance of the work matters more than its label, and those who promise payment for labor must honor that obligation.