Unfair Labor Practice Lawyer | A worker's guide to recognizing retaliation and filing for remedy
Summary
An unfair labor practice is an act by an employer that infringes on a worker's right to organize, bargain collectively, or engage in collective action, and is prohibited under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조). Common examples include dismissing or disadvantaging a worker for joining a union, refusing to bargain in good faith, or interfering with the formation or operation of a union. A worker who experienced this can apply to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy within a set time limit, and separately, some conduct can also be pursued as a criminal matter. This page focuses on how workers can identify, document, and pursue these claims.
Labor · AdministrativeApplicable law: Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment ActWorker's perspectiveLabor Relations Commission
Unfair Labor Practice | What Counts as an Unfair Labor Practice
The Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act lists specific categories of employer conduct that qualify as unfair labor practices (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조). Recognizing which category your situation falls under matters because it shapes what evidence you need and how the Labor Relations Commission will evaluate your claim.
Item 1
Disadvantageous Treatment for Union Activity
This covers dismissal, disciplinary action, transfer, demotion, or any other disadvantage imposed because a worker joined or tried to join a union, tried to organize one, or carried out legitimate union work (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제1호). The key question is causation: was the adverse action actually motivated by the union activity, even if the employer cites a different official reason?
Item 2
Yellow-Dog Contracts
An employer cannot make it a condition of hiring that a worker not join or withdraw from a union, or join a specific union instead (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제2호). This often shows up in employment contracts or verbal conditions attached to a job offer.
Item 3
Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith
An employer that refuses or delays collective bargaining, or collective agreement negotiations, without a justifiable reason can be found to have committed an unfair labor practice (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제3호). Whether the employer's reason was 'justifiable' is usually the central dispute in these cases.
Item 4
Domination or Interference with Union Operation
This includes acts that control or interfere with the formation or operation of a labor union, as well as providing operating expenses to a union in a way designed to undermine its independence (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제4호). Employer-sponsored 'shadow unions' or excessive financial support to weaken an independent union can fall here.
Item 5
Disadvantage for Filing or Testifying
Retaliating against a worker for filing a complaint with the Labor Relations Commission, or for testifying or providing evidence in such proceedings, is itself treated as a separate unfair labor practice (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제5호). This protects workers who come forward during an existing case from further retaliation.
What Doesn't Automatically Count
Not every unfavorable employment decision against a union member is an unfair labor practice. If the employer can show a legitimate, non-retaliatory business reason that would have led to the same action regardless of union activity, the claim becomes harder to sustain. This is why timeline, comparator treatment of non-union coworkers, and internal documents often decide these cases.
Unfair Labor Practice | When Dismissal or Discipline Is Really About Union Activity
The most common worker complaint is being dismissed, transferred, or disciplined shortly after joining a union or taking part in organizing. Because employers rarely state the real reason openly, these cases usually turn on indirect evidence.
Timing as Circumstantial Evidence
A disciplinary action or transfer that closely follows union formation, a strike, or a worker's election as a union officer is often treated as suspicious timing by the Labor Relations Commission. Timing alone is rarely decisive, but combined with other facts it can shift the burden onto the employer to explain its reasoning.
Comparing Treatment of Similarly Situated Workers
If a non-union coworker with a similar record was not disciplined for comparable conduct, that discrepancy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in these cases. Keeping records of how coworkers in similar positions were treated helps build this comparison.
Pretextual Reasons
Employers sometimes cite performance issues, restructuring, or rule violations that were never enforced before the union appeared. Whether the stated reason is genuine or a pretext is frequently the central factual dispute litigated before the Commission.
Unfair Labor Practice | Interference With Union Formation and Operation
Beyond individual retaliation, employers sometimes act to weaken a union as a whole — through surveillance, pressure on members to withdraw, or setting up a rival organization. These patterns are harder to prove individually but often appear together.
Pressure to Withdraw from the Union
Managers individually contacting employees to suggest they leave the union, or implying career consequences for staying, can constitute domination or interference under the Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제4호). Written messages, recordings, or witness accounts of such conversations are important.
Financial Support Used to Undermine Independence
Providing office space or funds to a union is not automatically unlawful, but doing so in a way that makes the union financially dependent on management can be scrutinized as interference. The distinction usually depends on whether the support compromises the union's actual independence in decision-making.
Refusal to Bargain Without Justifiable Reason
When an employer repeatedly postpones bargaining sessions, sends low-level representatives without authority to negotiate, or refuses to provide information necessary for bargaining, this pattern can support a finding of bad-faith refusal to bargain (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제3호).
Unfair Labor Practice | What Evidence Actually Moves These Cases
Because unfair labor practice cases rarely involve a written admission from the employer, workers need to actively preserve evidence from the moment they suspect retaliation. What you gather in the first few weeks often determines the outcome.
Contemporaneous Records
Notes made close to the time of an incident — dates, who was present, what was said — carry more weight than a reconstruction written months later. Emails, internal messenger logs, and meeting minutes are often more persuasive than personal recollection alone.
Union Activity Records
Keeping a record of your own union role and activities (meeting attendance, officer positions, statements made in negotiations) helps establish the link the Commission will look for between your activity and the employer's response.
Statutory Filing Deadline
An application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months of the date the unfair labor practice occurred (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제82조 제2항). Missing this window generally forecloses the administrative remedy route, so early consultation matters even before all evidence is fully organized.
⚠ Three-Month Filing Deadline
An unfair labor practice remedy application must be filed within three months from the date the act occurred (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제82조 제2항). If this period passes, the administrative remedy through the Labor Relations Commission is generally no longer available, regardless of how strong the underlying evidence is.
Unfair Labor Practice | From Initial Consultation to Commission Decision
1
Initial Fact-Finding A worker's counsel reviews the timeline, the disadvantage suffered, and available evidence to assess whether the facts fit one of the statutory categories under Article 81.
2
Filing the Remedy Application An application is filed with the regional Labor Relations Commission within the three-month deadline, setting out the facts, the specific unfair labor practice alleged, and the remedy sought.
3
Investigation and Hearing The Commission investigates the facts, may hold a hearing with both parties, and examines documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by the worker and the employer.
4
Commission Order If the claim is upheld, the Commission can order remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, or other corrective measures appropriate to the violation found.
5
Appeal if Necessary Either party dissatisfied with the regional Commission's decision can seek reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission, and ultimately administrative litigation in court if the dispute continues.
Unfair Labor Practice | How Fees Are Typically Structured
Retainer Fee Generally calculated based on the complexity of the case, the number of statutory grounds involved, and whether the matter proceeds only before the Labor Relations Commission or also involves related criminal or civil claims.
Success Fee Where applicable, may be structured around the remedy actually obtained, such as reinstatement or back pay, and is agreed upon separately from the retainer.
Commission Filing Costs Applications to the Labor Relations Commission generally do not require a filing fee, which distinguishes this route from ordinary civil litigation.
Additional Proceedings If the case also involves administrative litigation appealing a Commission decision, or a related criminal complaint, these are typically billed as separate stages with their own fee arrangement.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Unfair Labor Practice | Self-Check Before You File
1️⃣ Did This Happen Because of Union Activity?
Did the disadvantage (dismissal, transfer, discipline) occur shortly after you joined or organized a union?
Were you treated differently from coworkers in similar situations who were not union members?
Did a manager ever suggest, directly or indirectly, that your union involvement was a problem?
Was the stated reason for the action ever applied to other employees before your union activity began?
2️⃣ Is Your Evidence in Order?
Do you have dated notes, messages, or emails from around the time of the incident?
Can you identify coworkers who witnessed relevant events or conversations?
Do you have records of your own union role or activities (meeting attendance, officer position)?
Have you kept copies of any disciplinary notices or written warnings issued to you?
3️⃣ Are You Within the Filing Deadline?
Has it been less than three months since the unfair labor practice occurred?
If more than three months have passed, is there an ongoing or repeated pattern of conduct?
Have you consulted about the deadline before gathering all your evidence?
4️⃣ Bargaining-Related Situations
Has your employer repeatedly postponed or refused bargaining sessions without explanation?
Has the employer sent representatives without real authority to negotiate?
Has the employer withheld information reasonably necessary for bargaining?
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. I was dismissed right after joining a union. Is that automatically an unfair labor practice?
A. Not automatically, but the timing is significant evidence. The Labor Relations Commission will look at whether the employer's stated reason for dismissal is genuine or a pretext, and whether similarly situated non-union employees were treated differently (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제1호).
Q. How long do I have to file a claim?
A. An application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date the unfair labor practice occurred (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제82조 제2항). This deadline is strictly applied, so early consultation is important even if your evidence is not fully organized yet.
Q. What remedies can the Commission actually order?
A. If your claim is upheld, remedies can include reinstatement to your former position, payment of back pay for the period of unlawful disadvantage, or other corrective orders tailored to the specific violation. The exact remedy depends on the type of unfair labor practice found.
Q. Can I file this claim on my own, or do I need a lawyer?
A. Workers can file directly with the Labor Relations Commission without a lawyer, but because these cases often turn on circumstantial evidence and legal characterization of the employer's conduct, many workers consult counsel to organize evidence and frame the claim before filing.
Q. My employer says I was let go for performance reasons, not union activity. What do I do?
A. This is the most common employer defense. The key is gathering evidence showing whether the performance issue was raised before your union activity, and whether coworkers with similar performance records who were not in the union received the same treatment.
Q. Can I also file a criminal complaint in addition to the Commission remedy?
A. Certain unfair labor practices can also carry criminal liability under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and a worker may pursue both the administrative remedy and a criminal complaint depending on the facts. Whether both routes make sense depends on the specific conduct involved.
Q. What if the disadvantage was a transfer or demotion, not a dismissal?
A. Transfers and demotions can also qualify as unfair labor practices if they were motivated by union activity, even though they are less severe than dismissal (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제1호). The same causation analysis applies regardless of the type of disadvantage.
Q. My employer is talking directly to union members to convince them to quit the union. Is that legal?
A. Direct pressure on individual members to withdraw from a union, especially where it implies career consequences, can constitute unlawful domination or interference with the union's operation (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제4호).
Q. What happens if the employer refuses to negotiate at all?
A. A refusal or unjustified delay in collective bargaining can itself be found to be an unfair labor practice (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제3호). The Commission examines whether the employer's stated justification for refusing or delaying was genuine.
Q. I testified in a coworker's unfair labor practice case and now I'm facing retaliation. What can I do?
A. Retaliation against a worker for testifying or providing evidence in a Labor Relations Commission proceeding is treated as a separate unfair labor practice in itself (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제5호), and can be filed as its own claim.
Q. Does it matter if I am not yet a union officer, just a regular member?
A. No. The protection against disadvantageous treatment applies to any worker who joined or tried to join a union or took part in legitimate union activity, not only to officers or organizers (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제81조 제1항 제1호).
Q. Can I get reinstated even if a lot of time has passed since my dismissal?
A. Reinstatement is one possible remedy if the Commission finds an unfair labor practice, but the practical likelihood depends on the specific facts and how the case develops through investigation and hearing. This is something to discuss concretely with counsel based on your situation.
법무법인 프런티어(이하 “사무소”)는 개인정보보호법에 따라 정보주체의 개인정보 및 권익을 보호하고 개인정보와 관련된 정보주체의 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리하기 위하여 본 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치
제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다
제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.
제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.
제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.
제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.
제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.
제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.
개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.
제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.
제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제