Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 156) sur les travailleurs ayant des responsabilités familiales, 1981 - République de Corée (Ratification: 2001)

Autre commentaire sur C156

Observation

2020
2018
2011

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), as well as the Government’s reply to the FKTU’s observations, communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. National policy. Legislative developments. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of a new Framework Act on Gender Equality (Act No. 12698 of 28 May 2014), in particular article 24(3) and (4) (support to workers whose career is, or may be, impacted by pregnancy, childbirth or childcare); article 25 (guarantee of rights related to maternity and paternity); article 26 (measures for a harmonious work–family balance); and article 35 (calling for democratic and gender-equal family relationships); as well as the amendments to the Equal Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act (Act No. 8781 of 21 December 2007, previously called the “Act on the Equal Employment of Both Sexes” or “Equal Employment Act”) in 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016 in relation, inter alia, to the formulation of a basic plan for the realization of equal employment for both genders and work–family balance every five years (article 6-2); maternity leave benefits (article 18); paternity leave (article 18-2); childcare leave (article 19); reduction of working hours and other measures to support the worker during the period of childcare (articles 19-2 and 19-5); support by employers to workers who return to work after leave or a reduction of working hours in relation to family responsibilities (article 19-6); support for family care of workers, including prohibition of dismissal or discrimination against workers on the ground of family care leave, and inclusion of the period of family care leave in the period of continuous service (article 22 2); and penalty provisions and administrative fines (articles 37 and 39).

In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of the Act on the Promotion of the Economic Activities of Career-Interrupted Women (No. 9101 of 2008) and the Act on the Promotion of Creation of Family-friendly Social Environment (No. 8695 of 2007), as well as the Second Basic Plan for Healthy Family (2011–15) and the Second Basic Plan on Low Birth Rate and Aging Society (2011–15), in the context of workers with family responsibilities, and on the process of enacting the Smart Work Promotion Bill. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the latter bill was not adopted by the National Assembly and has been abandoned. It also notes that, in accordance with the Career-Interrupted Women Act, Basic Plans to Promote the Economic Activities of Career-Interrupted Women were established and implemented for the periods 2010–14 and 2015–18, with a particular focus on the prevention of career-breaks for employed women, the promotion of the re-employment of women whose careers had been interrupted, the reinforcement of childcare infrastructure and the establishment of a work–family balance environment. The Committee also notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in its concluding observations on the eighth periodic report of the Republic of Korea welcomed the adoption, inter alia, of the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies (2018–22) (CEDAW/C/KOR/CO/8, 14 March 2018, paragraph 5(b)). It also notes that the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) informed the CEDAW, during the presentation of the Republic of Korea’s eighth periodic report on 22 February 2018, of the adoption of the Sixth Basic Plan for Gender Equal Employment (2018–22). The Committee notes that one of the six major projects of the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies concerns the creation of social infrastructure for work–life balance by strengthening social responsibility for care-giving, guaranteeing working parents’ maternal and paternal rights and fostering a family-friendly culture in the workplace. The Government underlines that it created 150 new job centres for women (as of July 2016) offering women whose careers had been interrupted customized employment support services such as employment counselling, vocational education and training, internships, job placement and follow-up management; and carried out two surveys on the actual status of economic activities of women whose careers had been interrupted with a view to collect statistical and policy data to inform new policies, including re-employment support. Under the Second Basic Plan for Healthy Family and the Second Basic Plan on Low Birth Rate and Aging Society, the Government selected key policy tasks such as childcare support (providing such support to more households, establishing and expanding cooperative childcare activities and spaces and operating after-school childcare services), capacity-building support for various types of families (including unwed mothers), building a family-friendly environment by expanding flexible work arrangements at public institutions and encouraging the use of childcare leave (including paternity leave), and introducing the “Father’s Month” incentive whereby if both parents take childcare leave in turn for the same child, the benefits for the second person taking childcare leave is increased to 100 per cent of the ordinary wage for three months (up to 1.5 million South Korean won). The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it provided free childcare service for all groups of persons with infants, strengthening social responsibilities for childbirth and childcare, including by lowering the financial burden for child rearing for any household. According to the Government, the number of children covered by subsidies for childcare centres costs rose from 680,000 in 2006 to 1.48 million in 2014, and the number of children covered by child-rearing subsidies went from 680,000 in 2009 to 1.01 million in 2014. According to statistics available on the website of MOGEF, 63,546 families were using child-care services in 2017, in an increase 3.8 per cent compared to 2016 (61,221 families).

With regard to the family-friendly company certification system under the Act on the Promotion of Creation of Family-friendly Social Environment, the Committee welcomes the significant increase in the number of family-friendly certified corporations, from 1,363 as of December 2015 according to the Government’s report to 2,802 in 2017 according to statistics from MOGEF. The Government indicates that family-friendly certified corporations receive extra points in qualification assessment for government procurement as well as various benefits for bank investments and loans.

Welcoming these positive developments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of the Framework Act on Gender Equality, 2014 (Act No. 12698), as amended, and the Equal Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act, 2007 (Act No. 8781) as amended. Noting the adoption of several plans aiming at gender equality in employment and support to workers with family responsibilities, the Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken in application of these plans, the categories and number of workers benefiting from these measures and the results obtained. The Government is also requested to continue to provide information on the family-friendly company certification system, indicating the criteria taken into account and process to award the certification to a corporation.

Article 4. Leave entitlements for men and women workers with family responsibilities. The Committee notes the statistics on the recipients of childcare leave provided by the Government. While welcoming the significant increase, between 2011 and 2015, in the number of recipients (plus 50.2 per cent in general and plus 247.5 per cent for men) and in the financial amount of benefits provided (plus 124.3 per cent in general and plus 376 per cent for men), the Committee notes that, in 2015, men represented only 5.6 per cent of the childcare leave beneficiaries (i.e. 4,872 men out of 87,339 beneficiaries in total; the Government indicating that this ratio went up to 7.4 per cent in the first half of 2016) and only 4.4 per cent of the total amount of benefits received (it was, respectively, 2.4 per cent of beneficiaries and 2.1 per cent of benefits received in 2011). In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the underlying causes of the low number of men taking childcare leave and to take measures to promote the exercise of childcare leave particularly by men. It notes the Government’s explanation that this is due to the overall social and employment cultures, such as the long-standing practice of working long hours and fear of what the supervisor or co-workers might think. In addition, men are still the majority of the primary – if not the only – revenue earner in the family and some households may find it difficult to maintain their standard of living if the father takes childcare leave. The Government emphasizes that it has intensively promoted the need for paternity leave through the public–private work–family balance council and that the number of persons joining the “Father’s Month” system (explained above), which it adopted in 2014 and extended to three months in 2016, grew 3.4 times between 2015 and 2016. The Committee also notes that the following provisions to the Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act have been amended: article 18-2 to provide up to five days of paternity leave (three days paid); article 19(1) to raise the age limit of children, including adopted children, for purposes of determining parent’s eligibility for such leave, to under the age of 8 years; and article 19(5) in order, according to the Government, to protect fixed-term and temporary agency workers’ right to childcare leave. In this regard, the Committee brings the attention of the Government to the concluding observations of CEDAW which recommended it continue to conduct awareness-raising campaigns and expand benefits, such as by raising the benefit level for maternity and paternity leave so as to enhance the incentives to share child-rearing responsibilities between parents (CEDAW/C/KOR/CO/8, paragraph 39 (c)). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the leave entitlements in practice, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such entitlements. It encourages the Government to continue to take proactive measures to encourage more men to exercise their right to take leave for childcare, as well as to indicate the results achieved by such measures.

Working time arrangements. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on: (i) the use of the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system, including statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of beneficiaries of such systems, as well as the impact of the latter on employment of workers with family responsibilities; and (ii) legislative amendments to provide the right to reduced working time during childcare periods. The Committee notes that the 2012 amendments to article 19-2 of the Equal Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act introduced the right to reduced working time during childcare period. It also notes the Government’s statement that amendments are pending in the National Assembly to extend the period during which a flexible working hour system can be put in place (up to six months as from 2024) and introduce a working hour saving system. The Committee notes with interest the adoption, on 28 February 2018, of amendments to the Labour Standards Act (No. 8372 of 2007) in order to reduce the maximum statutory working hours from 68 hours to 52 hours (40 hours a week – the law specifying that the term “week” includes the Saturday and the Sunday – and up to 12 hours of overtime work, with work on holiday or weekend being counted as overtime work) with a gradual implementation according to the number of employees from 1 July 2018 (for workplaces with 300 employees or more) to 1 July 2021 (for workplaces with five to 50 employees, with the possibility for workplaces with less than 30 employees to work an additional eight hours of special overtime until 31 December 2022 if such an agreement is made between the employer and the employee). The Committee recalls that hours of work and the arrangement of working time are of central concern to workers with family responsibilities and that the improvement of working conditions has been found, in practice, to be highly supportive of policies for the promotion of equal opportunities and treatment between men and women in employment. Measures taken in this field, such as the reduction of hours of work, enable workers better to reconcile their work and family responsibilities and encourage men to become more involved in family matters. In addition, it recalls that paragraph 18(a) of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165) calls for the progressive reduction of daily hours of work and the reduction of overtime (see General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, paragraphs 131 and 133). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has been encouraging companies to reduce working hours by offering financial support to small and medium enterprises and conducting labour inspections in sectors where overtime is common, while raising public awareness and creating a climate for addressing unnecessary long hours and night work. In this regard, the Committee notes the FKTU’s observations that men do more overtime working hours than women, which, in turn, has a significant impact on wages. Overtime compensation affects the practice of working long hours which creates an unequal employment environment with career discontinuity for women and a gender wage gap. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to FKTU’s observations whereby it underlines that the gender gap in working hours, and the resulting wage gap, is attributable to a culture in which women usually bear more of the burden of childcare than men due to long working hours; and that it addresses the issue by making efforts to expand a business culture favourable to work–family balance. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of the amendments relating to the flexible working hour system and working hour saving system as well as detailed information on their usage. Please also provide information on the implementation of the 2018 amendments to the Labour Standards Act to reduce working hours, the trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women, as well as on any measures taken to address excessive overtime work and its impact on work–life balance.

Part-time work. In its previous comment, the Committee had asked the Government to: (i) indicate how the Fixed-term and Part-time Workers Act had facilitated the moving of workers with family responsibilities from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa, with an indication of the number of men and women using this option and the number of women moving back to full-time work; and (ii) indicate how the issue of female concentration in part-time work is addressed in the context of reconciling work and family responsibilities. The Committee notes that the Government did not provide the required statistical information but that it is promoting “convertible part-time jobs” whereby workers may choose to work part time for a certain period of time, provided that they go back to full-time employment at the end of the period. The Government is providing employers, offering convertible part-time employment, subsidies to cover their expenses as well as “customized consulting”. In addition, it underlines that the right to reduce hours of work applies equally to men and women, encouraging both parents to work together in balancing work and family. The Committee notes the FKTU’s indication that, whereas women represented 35.4 per cent of regular workers and 53.8 per cent of non-regular workers in 2015, they accounted for 69.2 per cent of part-time workers and that most part-time jobs are not chosen voluntarily and are not properly paid in proportion to hours worked. The FKTU adds that the significant employment segregation by gender in part-time jobs could have a negative impact on the measures against gender-based discrimination, wage levels and career development. In reply, the Government indicates that the female (aged 15 to 64) employment rate has been on an upward trend for several years, reaching 56.8 per cent in July 2016. It states that a survey carried out from April to June 2016 showed that childcare was the main reason for choosing a convertible part-time job and that, during the period of childbirth and childcare, women prefer part-time jobs for work–family balance. The Committee also notes the observations from KEF which, based on statistics from 2015, underlines that the proportion of part-time workers among female wage workers is relatively low by international comparison (15.9 per cent whereas the average for the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was 25.9 per cent in 2015) and that the proportion of female workers among the entire part-time workers was 62.6 per cent (compared to 68.7 per cent for the OECD). The Committee notes however that, according to statistics published on the website of MOGEF, the “part-time women’s employment rate among total women’s employment”, as of August 2017, was 41.2 per cent, and the women’s share of part-time employment represented 55.2 per cent. Recalling, once again, that the assumption that the main responsibility for family care and the household lies with women, thus reinforcing stereotypical attitudes regarding the roles of men and women and existing gender inequality, runs counter to the objectives of the Convention, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to its direct request under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee requests, once again, the Government to indicate: (i) the number of men and women using the possibility of moving from full-time work to part-time work, and vice versa, and the number of women moving back to full-time work; and (ii) the measures taken to avoid female concentration in part-time work, in the context of reconciling work and family responsibilities.

Article 11. Employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the “Public–Private Work–Family Balance Council” which operates at both the national and regional level. At the national level, the Council is composed since May 2016 of representatives of the Ministry of Employment and Labour and other relevant ministries such as MOGEF, the Ministry of Welfare and Health and the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, representatives of the KEF, the Federation of Korean Industries, the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Korea International Trade Association and the Korean Women Entrepreneurs Association, as well as representatives of the FKTU. It meets once every quarter. The objective of the Council is to monitor how work–family balance has been implemented, share best practices, implement public–private campaigns, understand the demand for better systems and identify and discuss areas for cooperation. At the regional level, the Council is composed, on a voluntarily basis, of heads of regional branches, municipal bodies, labour and management representatives, relevant agencies (such as the new job centres) and experts. It meets once a month. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the activities of the Public–Private Work–Family Balance Council and its recommendations relating specifically to workers with family responsibilities and to provide a copy of its annual report if any.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no information available on relevant judicial or administrative decisions addressing discrimination on the basis of family or care responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the supervisory authorities and enforcement mechanisms, including the labour inspectorate and the National Labour Relations Commission, giving effect to the provisions of the Convention, as well as any administrative or judicial decisions relating to the application of the Convention. It also asks the Government to provide information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex, studies, surveys or reports that may enable the Committee to assess how the principles of the Convention are applied in practice, and how progress is being made to address existing inequalities between men and women workers with family responsibilities and between those workers and workers without such responsibilities.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.