A lawyer who recently attended a Labor Relations Commission (LRC) adjudication hearing was taken aback. This was because the documentary evidence submitted by the opposing side was exaggerated and contained false claims, yet the public interest commissioners overseeing the hearing did not intervene. The lawyer stated, “Despite this being a critical case involving a corporation, I felt that the public interest commissioners, except for the presiding commissioner, had not properly reviewed the submitted records. In court, judges often ask piercing questions that catch one off guard, but such a process was entirely absent here.”
Calls to overhaul the adjudication structure of the LRC, which positions itself as a “quasi-judicial body,” are growing louder. Since the implementation of the yellow envelop law in March, the LRC has gained immense influence over South Korea’s industrial sector by determining employer status in subcontracting relationships, strikes, and subjects of collective bargaining. However, criticism arises that its review process is so inadequate that it struggles to verify the truthfulness of claims. Additionally, despite being an institution required to make independent decisions, fairness controversies persist as key positions are held by figures who lead labor policies, including former Ministry of Employment and Labor bureaucrats.
The foremost issue experts highlight is the LRC’s insufficient review procedures. Basic steps, such as asking both labor and...
A lawyer who recently attended a Labor Relations Commission (LRC) adjudication hearing was taken aback. This was because the documentary evidence submitted by the opposing side was exaggerated and...