개정 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 논점

This paper analyzes the major contents and significance of the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Trade Union Act”), commonly known as the Yellow Envelope Act, which was promulgated on September 9, 2025, and is scheduled to take effect on March 10, 2026. The Yellow Envelope Act represents a legislative attempt to resolve issues that have been at the center of conflict between labor and business sectors for over a decade since the 2009 SsangYong Motor labor dispute. It aims to codify the “substantial control doctrine” that has developed through case law and strengthen the constitutional guarantee of collective bargaining rights. This study examines the development of the substantial control doctrine through case law from the 2003 Hyundai Heavy Industries case to the 2025 Hyundai Steel and Hanwha Ocean cases. In the 2010 Hyundai Heavy Industries case, the Supreme Court recognized as an employer “a person in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine the basic working conditions of workers to the extent that they can be considered to bear a certain portion of the authority and responsibility as the business owner who employs those workers” for purposes of unfair labor practice relief orders. This legal principle has subsequently been extended through case law to the concept of employer as a party to collective bargaining. The main contents of the Yellow Envelope Act amendments are as follows: First, as expansion of the Employer Concept(Article 2, Paragraph 2 Amendment), the amendment recognizes as an employer “a person in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine the working conditions of workers, even if not a party to the employment contract”. This codifies the substantial control doctrine that has been developed through case law, particularly in the context of indirect employment relationships. Second, as relaxation of Labor Union Establishment Requirements(Article 2, Paragraph 4, Item (d) Deletion), the provision that did not recognize as a labor union “cases where membership of persons who are not workers is permitted” has been deleted. This amendment allows for greater flexibility in union membership and organization. Third, as expansion of the Scope of Industrial Actions(Article 2, Paragraph 5 Amendment), the premise of labor disputes has been expanded from “determination of working conditions” to include “the status of workers,” working conditions and “business management decisions affecting working conditions,” and “clear violations of collective agreements by employers”. This significantly broadens the scope of legitimate labor disputes and industrial actions. Fourth, as mitigation of Liability for Damages(Article 3, Paragraph 1 Amendment, Paragraphs 6 and Article 3-2 Addition), “Other labor union activities” have been added to the grounds for limiting damage claims, abusive damage claims by employers are prohibited, and the employer's right to waive liability for damages has been codified. This represents a significant shift in the balance of power regarding damage liability in labor disputes. Fifth, as exemption from Liability for Damages in Self- Defense(Article 3, Paragraph 2 Addition), liability for damages is exempted when labor unions or workers unavoidably cause damage to employers in response to illegal acts by employers. This provision recognizes a form of justifiable defense in labor relations. Sixth, as individualization of Liability Ratios and Claims for Reduction of Compensation(Article 3, Paragraphs 3 and 4 Addition), the doctrine of quasi-joint and several liability recognized by existing case law has been modified to allow for the determination of liability ratios for each person liable for compensation and the reduction of compensation amounts. This change aims to prevent excessive damage awards against individual workers or union members. Seventh, as exemption of Guarantor's Liability(Article 3, Paragraph 5 Addition), guarantors are not liable for damages arising from collective bargaining, industrial actions, or other labor union activities. This protects third parties who have provided guarantees for workers from being held liable for labor-related damages. This study anticipates the direction of future enforcement decree enactment. Since the enforcement decree must be submitted to the Minister of Legislation for review 45 days before the effective date of the law, the draft enforcement decree must be submitted by the end of January 2026. When enacting the enforcement decree, specific and clear standards should be presented to substantially guarantee constitutional collective bargaining rights and promote balance in labor-management relations while observing the limits of delegated legislation and the principle of legal reservation. In conclusion, the Yellow Envelope Act amendments can be evaluated as a legislative attempt to substantially guarantee constitutional collective bargaining rights and promote balance in labor-management relations through the expansion of the employer concept in indirect employment relationships, relaxation of labor union establishment requirements, expansion of the scope of industrial actions, and limitation of liability for damages. This aims to correct imbalances in labor-management relations and substantially guarantee constitutional collective bargaining rights through two core principles: “consistency of authority and responsibility” and “limitation of indiscriminate large-scale damage claims.” The specific contents will be determined through future enforcement decree enactment and accumulation of court precedents. In particular, the conclusion of Supreme Court Case No. 2018Da296229, currently under review by the en banc Supreme Court, and the results of appeals in the Hyundai Steel and Hanwha Ocean cases decided by the Seoul Administrative Court on July 25, 2025, are expected to have a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the amended law. These judicial decisions will play a crucial role in clarifying the boundaries and practical application of the new provisions, particularly regarding the expanded definition of employer and the limitations on damage liability.