Worker Representative · Written Agreement
Worker Representative & Written Agreement
What is a worker representative?
- Requirements for adopting working-hours systems
- Election independence determines validity
- Always state the scope and period in the agreement
Once a worker representative is in place, the power to design working hours shifts from the employer’s sole decision to joint agreement. Even if management signs off and writes the clause into the work rules, the system is void without a written agreement. Conversely, with a lawful agreement the system applies across the whole workplace even if individual workers do not consent. A worker representative is not just a name on a form but the legal requirement that underpins the system’s validity.
There are two paths. If a labor union represents a majority of workers, that union is automatically the representative. If not, workers must elect someone to represent the majority. The majority is counted against all workers at the business or workplace, including fixed-term and part-time workers, but excluding executives who represent the employer’s interests. The distinction practitioners confuse most is that the 'majority consent' required to change work rules to workers’ disadvantage and a written agreement are separate procedures. The first is a collective confirmation of workers’ intent; the second is an agreement document signed with the representative or the union. A worker member of the labor-management council does not automatically become the worker representative either. The agreement must state the scope of covered workers, the unit period, daily working hours, and the validity period, and related documents must be kept for three years.
In practice, the failure point is almost always the claim that “we did hold an election.” Common cases: HR names the production manager and just collects a signature; 60 signatures gathered on a circulated sheet stand in for an election; or a representative elected years ago has left, yet agreements keep being renewed in that person’s name. If an inspector finds a procedural defect, the flexible working hours system is void retroactively, and every hour above 40 per week within the unit period is recalculated as overtime. The company then owes the 50% premium for up to three years back, and if violations of the 52-hour weekly cap surface too, it becomes a criminal liability issue. In the end, the election notice and a single vote-result sheet are the company’s only line of defense.
Jongmu KimSpecialist in corporate talent development and job competency building
Inwoo LeeExpert in leadership, communication, and performance managementThe Labor Standards Act requires a written agreement with the worker representative to adopt systems such as flexible and elective working hours, discretionary work, and compensatory leave. The worker representative is defined as a majority labor union or a person representing the majority of workers.
Company A, an auto-parts maker with 180 employees, had run a three-month flexible working hours system for two years to handle its peak season. Then a former employee filed a complaint with the regional labor office, and the review found that the only paper on file was an agreement signed by the production management team leader, with no election behind it. Retroactive overtime pay was estimated at around KRW 200 (≈ US$1) million, so the company rushed to hold a new election. (Hypothetical example)
- Three days after the complaint was filed, the HR team leader pulled the existing agreement and told the CEO, “This paper won’t hold up. We need to start over and hold a proper election.”
- The election notice was posted for 10 days on the intranet board and at four line bulletin boards. It stated the purpose as “concluding a written agreement on the flexible working hours system,” which limited the scope of the representative’s authority.
- To head off claims of company interference, the company handed the vote to an election committee of three production-floor foremen and two office assistant managers. HR only supplied the employee roster.
- The vote ran over two days, timed to the shift changeovers. 152 of 180 eligible employees voted, and the Assembly Team 2 foreman won 118 votes to become the worker representative.
- The new agreement with the new representative covered 156 employees, a 3-month unit period, and a 1-year validity, with a daily working-hours schedule attached; the notice, voting record, and ballot count results were kept together as a single file.
- Four months later, the labor inspection closed with no procedural defect cited. The retroactive pay risk of around KRW 200 million (≈ US$149,600) was gone, and average weekly hours in peak season were held to 48.5.