Can Your Korean Employer Change the Rules of Employment Without Your Consent?

The answer depends on the kind of change. Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act says that when an employer prepares or changes the Rules of Employment, he must hear the opinion of the labor union if there is one made up of the majority of workers. If there is no union, he must hear the opinion of the majority of the workers. If the change is unfavorable to workers, he must get their consent, not only hear their opinion.

The book describes three situations. The first is the employer's general authority. The employer has full authority to amend the rules, and a revised version that disadvantages a group of employees is still legally effective in general. But for current employees whose vested interests would be harmed, the change does not apply without their consent. They remain under the previous rules.

The second is a neutral amendment. If the change is neither better nor worse for employees, the employer only has to hear their opinions.

The third is a disadvantageous amendment. Here the consent of employees must be obtained through a collective decision-making method. Without it, the change has no effect. Where there is no labor union, consent means a majority of employees agreeing in the form of a meeting where they exchange opinions, add up the pros and cons, and reach a result without interference from the employer. The Supreme Court says it is a problem if the employer pressures workers to accept. But if the employer simply explains the new content and announces it, that is not necessarily interference.

The book gives some court examples. In one case, a company revised wage rules unfavorably and passed it at a Board of Directors meeting, but did not get employee consent. The revised rules did not apply to employees hired before the change. In another, when a new company took over a business, it could not apply its worse rules to the previous company's employees without majority consent. Employees stayed under the earlier rules.

There is also the case of a bank where a labor union represented the majority. The bank collected approval from 60 of 64 union members individually, but the court said it was not enough because the approval had to come from the union itself. Individual agreement cannot replace the union's approval. And where a Rules of Employment change conflicts with a collective agreement, it is ineffective, even if the procedure looked proper. The book adds that approval from an employee representative alone is not enough for a disadvantageous revision.

My advice is simple. If your company asks you to sign something about "new rules," do not just sign because the supervisor is standing there. Ask what changes, and whether it is better or worse for you.

About the Author

English Instructor in South Korea | 22 Years of Teaching Experience

Majella Pagayon is the founder of Pinoy Sarang, a community platform dedicated to helping Filipinos navigate life, work, education, and immigration in South Korea. She regularly writes practical guides, safety tips, and educational resources for Filipinos living and working abroad.