Administrative

Yellow Envelope Act Lawyer

Yellow Envelope Act Lawyer | What the amendment restricts and how employers should respond

Summary

The "Yellow Envelope Act" is the popular name for the 2025 amendment to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법), which narrows an employer's ability to seek joint-and-several damages against every individual union member for losses caused by industrial action. It requires courts to apportion liability according to each person's actual role and degree of involvement, and it also widens the definition of "employer" and the scope of matters subject to collective bargaining. For companies, this means damages claims are still possible, but the drafting, evidence, and target of the claim now matter far more than before.

Administrative · Labor Governing law: Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Employer perspective Strike damages

Yellow Envelope Act | Legislative Background and What It Actually Changes

The name comes from a 2014 civic campaign that sent yellow envelopes containing small donations to help a union pay a large damages judgment. The 2025 amendment responds to that history by rewriting how liability for strike-related losses is calculated and by broadening protections for workers engaged in lawful collective action.

From joint liability to individualized liability

Previously, courts could hold every participating union member jointly and severally liable for the full amount of a company's losses, even members with minor or passive involvement. The amendment requires courts to consider each individual's specific conduct, role, and the extent of their participation when determining the amount each person owes (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제3조 개정 내용 참조). This does not eliminate individual liability, but it forces a more granular calculation than a single lump sum divided among defendants.

Expanded definition of "employer"

The amendment broadens who can be treated as the counterpart employer in bargaining and dispute-related claims, extending in some cases to entities that exercise substantial control over working conditions even without a direct employment contract, such as certain principal contractors in subcontracting structures. This is significant for companies that rely on subcontracted or dispatched labor, because it can change who is expected to bargain and who can be named in related proceedings.

Broader scope of lawful industrial action

The definition of matters subject to collective bargaining and dispute action has been expanded beyond traditional wages-and-working-conditions issues. Whether a particular strike falls inside or outside this expanded scope is now a frequent point of dispute, because action found to be within scope is far harder to characterize as an illegal strike for damages purposes.

Yellow Envelope Act | How Damages Liability Is Now Assessed

For an employer, the practical question is no longer just "did the union act illegally," but "who specifically caused what loss, and how much of it." This section covers how that inquiry now plays out in practice.

Illegality of the industrial action is still the starting point

A damages claim still requires the employer to show that the strike or related action was unlawful, for example because it fell outside the legally permitted scope of a dispute or violated required procedures. The amendment does not create a general immunity for unions; it changes calculation of damages once illegality is established, not whether illegality itself must be proven.

Documenting individual roles for a defensible claim

Because courts must now examine each defendant's specific role, employers seeking damages need contemporaneous evidence distinguishing organizers, leaders, and ordinary participants — for example, records of who directed a picket line, who physically blocked facility access, and who was merely present. Claims that treat all union members as interchangeable are more vulnerable to being reduced or dismissed for individual defendants under the amended framework.

What kinds of losses remain claimable

Direct, quantifiable losses such as documented production stoppage costs, facility damage, or proven lost contracts generally remain claimable subject to proof of causation. More speculative or duplicative categories of loss are more likely to face scrutiny, particularly where the employer cannot connect a specific loss to a specific defendant's conduct.

Yellow Envelope Act | Bargaining Scope and Practical Response for Employers

Because the amendment widens both who counts as an employer and what counts as a lawful bargaining subject, companies need to reassess their exposure before a dispute even starts, not just after a claim is filed.

Reviewing subcontracting structures before a dispute arises

If your company uses subcontractors or dispatched workers, it is worth reviewing in advance whether your degree of control over their working conditions could bring you within the amendment's broadened employer definition. This affects both your bargaining obligations and your potential exposure as a defendant if those workers take industrial action.

Assessing whether a specific action falls within legal dispute scope

Before pursuing or threatening a damages claim, it is important to assess whether the union's action arguably falls within the amendment's expanded scope of lawful dispute subjects. Filing a claim over action that a court later finds to be lawful under the broadened scope carries its own litigation risk and cost.

Yellow Envelope Act | From Initial Review to Case Resolution

Initial fact-finding and document review
We review the timeline of the industrial action, internal records of losses, and any communications between the company and the union to assess whether the action appears to fall inside or outside the lawful scope of dispute.

Evidence collection on individual roles
Given the amendment's focus on individualized liability, we help identify and preserve evidence distinguishing organizers from rank-and-file participants, including CCTV, access logs, and internal incident reports.

Damages calculation and claim strategy
We work with the company to quantify claimable losses with supporting documentation and to decide which parties to name, given the higher evidentiary bar for holding individual members liable.

Negotiation or filing
Depending on the company's objectives, we pursue a negotiated resolution with the union or file a civil damages claim, adjusting strategy if the union raises a defense based on the amendment's expanded bargaining scope.

Litigation and enforcement
If the matter proceeds to litigation, we represent the company through trial and, where a judgment is obtained, through enforcement proceedings against the specific liable parties identified.

Yellow Envelope Act | Fee Structure

Retainer fee
Set based on the complexity of the dispute, the number of potential defendants, and whether the matter is expected to require extensive fact-finding on individual roles.

Success fee
If a contingent success fee structure is agreed, it is typically calculated as a percentage of the amount actually recovered or the value of a favorable settlement, set out in the engagement agreement.

Disbursements
Court filing fees, expert fees for damages quantification, and costs of evidence collection (such as forensic review of access logs or CCTV) are billed separately as incurred.

Advisory-only engagements
For companies seeking only a pre-dispute risk assessment of their subcontracting structure or bargaining exposure under the amendment, a separate advisory fee structure can be arranged without committing to litigation.

※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.

Yellow Envelope Act | Self-Assessment Checklist

1️⃣ Is the industrial action actually unlawful?

Did the union follow the required pre-strike procedures, such as mediation and strike vote requirements?
Does the subject matter of the dispute arguably fall within the amendment's expanded scope of lawful bargaining subjects?
Is there a clear factual basis for calling the specific conduct (e.g., blockade, violence) unlawful, apart from the strike itself?

2️⃣ Can you document individual liability?

Do you have records identifying who organized or led the action versus who merely participated?
Is there documentary or video evidence tying specific losses to specific individuals' conduct?
Have you avoided treating all participants as a single undifferentiated group in your internal records?

3️⃣ Are your losses provable and quantifiable?

Can each claimed loss be traced to a specific date, location, and cause connected to the dispute?
Do you have contemporaneous financial records (production logs, contracts, invoices) supporting the claimed amount?
Have you excluded speculative or indirect losses that may not survive scrutiny?

4️⃣ Is your company exposed under the expanded employer definition?

Do you exercise substantial control over the working conditions of subcontracted or dispatched workers?
Have you reviewed whether those workers' union could treat your company as a bargaining counterpart?
Have you assessed exposure before a dispute arises, rather than only after a claim is filed against you?

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Does the Yellow Envelope Act mean our company can no longer sue a union for strike damages?

A. No. The amendment does not abolish damages claims; it changes how liability is calculated once illegality is proven, requiring courts to look at each individual's role rather than imposing a single joint amount on all participants (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 개정 조항 참조). A well-documented claim against clearly identified organizers remains viable.

Q. Can we still hold ordinary rank-and-file members liable, or only union leaders?

A. Ordinary members can still be held liable if their specific conduct caused loss, but courts are now expected to assess their individual degree of involvement rather than treating them the same as organizers. This makes evidence distinguishing roles more important than before.

Q. How does the amendment affect companies that use subcontractors?

A. The amendment broadens the definition of employer to include entities exercising substantial control over subcontracted workers' conditions, even without a direct employment contract in some circumstances. This can mean a principal contractor becomes a proper party to bargaining or a dispute-related claim it previously might not have been.

Q. What losses can we still claim from a union after a strike?

A. Direct, documented losses such as verified production stoppage costs or facility damage generally remain claimable if causation and the amount are properly proven. The key change is less about which categories of loss are claimable and more about who can be held responsible for them and in what proportion.

Q. Is every strike now considered lawful under this amendment?

A. No. The amendment expands the scope of matters that can be subject to lawful collective bargaining and dispute action, but a strike outside that expanded scope, or one that violates required procedures, can still be found illegal. Whether a specific action falls inside or outside the expanded scope is often the central factual dispute in these cases.

Q. Should we file a damages claim immediately after a disruptive strike?

A. It is generally worth assessing the lawfulness of the action and gathering evidence on individual roles before filing, since a poorly prepared claim under the amended framework is more likely to be reduced or dismissed for individual defendants. Early legal review can help determine realistic recovery targets.

Q. Does the amendment apply to disputes that started before it took effect?

A. This depends on transitional provisions and the specific procedural stage of the case; some pending matters may be assessed under the rules in effect at the time of the relevant conduct. Because this is fact-specific, it should be reviewed with counsel on a case-by-case basis.

Q. What should we do now to reduce exposure under the new rules?

A. Reviewing subcontracting and dispatch arrangements for potential employer-status exposure, and setting up internal record-keeping practices that can later distinguish individual roles during a dispute, are the two most practical preparatory steps. Waiting until a dispute is already underway makes both tasks harder.

Official References

개인정보처리방침

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