The Reality and Challenges of the Right to Stop Work in Metal Workers’ Unions

Korea Institute of Labor Safety and Health

2024

This study examines how the right to stop work is defined and operates within metal workers’ unions, focusing on its application within the current legal and administrative framework in South Korea. 

An analysis of 110 collective agreements from various branches and chapters of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union reveals that while some agreements explicitly state the provisions of the right to stop work as outlined in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, others incorporate diverse provisions that take into account the purpose of the model collective agreement proposed by the union, the nature of the work, work patterns, and working conditions.

The study found instances where the right to stop work is not limited to individual workers performing tasks, but also extends to members of the occupational safety and health committee in the workplace, honorary occupational safety inspectors, union health and safety representatives, union members, internal inspectors, and safety managers. Collective agreements also expand the categories of risks related to the exercise of this right, considering situations such as the presence of industrial accident risks, determination of harmful working conditions based on workers’ environments, failure by the company to comply with safety facility improvements as mandated by safety laws, findings of abnormalities from internal inspections, and stress from customer interactions.

To investigate how the right to stop work is actually exercised across various workplaces, qualitative interviews were conducted. The findings indicate a wide range of interpretations regarding the legal stipulation of “imminent risk of industrial accidents,” with some workplaces only exercising the right after an accident occurs, while others implement preventive stops. Moreover, there are cases where the application of the right to stop work has expanded beyond imminent risks to include health risks faced by workers.

The entities that directly invoke the right to stop work vary widely across workplaces, including all workers (union members), members of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee, union representatives, or union officials, leading to differences in the procedures and scope of exercising this right. The usage of the right to stop work can be categorized into two main types: 1) Stopping work after an accident has occurred; and 2) Implementing preventive measures to stop work. The degree of reliance on established practices varies significantly among workplaces, with some utilizing preventive stops actively based on established practices despite lacking formal regulations and procedures, while others have regulations that are not effectively utilized. Companies often engage in disciplinary actions and legal battles to change these practices, while activists counter with various initiatives. Because these practices vary, there is a need to institutionalize them in a form that functions for workers in each workplace.

As employment structures become more layered, the study also identified that the right to stop work is being used in a discriminatory and hierarchical manner. In subcontracting structures, the limitations on exercising this right stem from: 1) The difficulty for subcontracted workers to expect “urgent measures” to respond to “imminent risks” from the primary contractors; 2) The perception that the disadvantages associated with exercising the right to stop work outweigh the benefits of ensuring safety; and 3) The indirect and passive nature of subcontracted workers’ exercise of the right. However, the risks faced by subcontracted workers and migrant workers are not separate from those of primary contractors’ workers. 

The study emphasizes the need for collective action to protect the common risks faced by all workers, advocating for the representation of the right to stop work not only for union members but for all workers in the workplace. Previously, the activation of the right to stop work has been evaluated based on the duration and frequency of work stoppages, but it is crucial to reconsider the meaning and purpose of exercising this right within the context of the overall safety and health system. It is possible for the right to stop work to be used actively under a controlling safety and health system, and for it to be used less frequently under a participatory safety and health system. The question is whether the use of the right to stop work expands the scope of the safety and health system and strengthens its operability.

The relationship between the exercise of the right to stop work and the safety and health system can be classified into three categories: 1) Disabling the right to stop work under an exclusionary safety and health system; 2) Activating the right to stop work under an exclusionary safety and health system; and 3) Activating the right to stop work under a participatory safety and health system. An analysis of these categories can help clarify the objectives and functions of exercising the right to stop work. It is important to consider the fundamental meaning and long-term goals of using the right to stop work, and to place the right to stop work as one of the measures to build a participatory safety system.

To assess how the right to stop work operates within South Korea’s legal and administrative framework, we reviewed court rulings regarding cases where workers’ stoppage actions were contested. The cases were categorized into those affirming and those denying the legitimacy of the right to stop work. In cases where the right to stop work was denied, courts imposed excessively strict interpretations of “imminent risk of industrial accidents” by adding requirements not present in the law. These included the need for “risk to be immediate,” “sufficiently foreseeable,” “failure to evacuate immediately,” “serious danger to life or health,” and “significant risk.” However, in the Continental case, the Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of workers’ exercise of the right to stop work, emphasizing that a union leader’s encouragement for members to stop work in hazardous situations was justified.

The study advocates for clearly delineating procedures for post-accident handling, the scope of work stoppages, and the role of unions in collective agreements to reduce disputes. Additionally, it is important to actively seek the causes of incidents while requiring subsequent safety measures and maintaining records of these efforts.

The study analyzed cases of stop work orders issued by the Ministry of Employment and Labor when there was an imminent risk of an industrial accident prior to the comprehensive revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 2019. The study found that prior to 2020, the Ministry defined “imminent risks of industrial accidents” as 1) Not necessarily implying that an accident is imminent but indicating a high likelihood of an incident occurring and 2) Not only safety issues but also health issues can be included as reasons for stopping work. The study emphasizes the need to extend the conditions for work stoppages to encompass health issues and suggests reviving the preventive authority of the Ministry of Labor regarding work stoppages as a necessary administrative measure in the context of recent changes. Note that the change in the Ministry’s work stoppage authority occurred at the behest of the business community during the revision of the Occupational Safety and Health act. In addition, the business community is pushing for an even narrower scope of Ministry authority over work stoppages. This needs to be addressed.

Comparative analysis of international examples has prompted considerations for the direction of revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These include: 1) Explicitly ensuring the collective right to stop work; 2) Establishing procedures for resolving disputes regarding risks between workers and employers; 3) Prohibiting internal regulations that limit the right to stop work; 4) Upholding principles that workers have no obligation to resume work until the risks are addressed; and 5) Increasing the penalties for accidents that occur when the hazard that caused the work stoppage is not addressed. Given that the current definition of ‘imminent’ hazards in the Occupational Safety and Health Act mainly refers to ‘near-accident’ situations, it is necessary to broaden the scope of hazards that can trigger the right to stop work, and to clearly establish the right to stop work as a natural right of workers when various hazards are not addressed. Rather than requiring workers to have “reasonable grounds” to exercise their right to stop work, the scope of the right to stop work should be broadened so that employers can only discipline workers if they can prove that the worker exercised the right to stop work for reasons that were not related to danger. This will allow workers to protect their health without fear.

This research concludes by proposing practical measures to effectively codify the right to stop work in various workplaces; suggesting revisions to collective agreements related to the right to stop work as part of the unified demands of the Metal Workers’ Union; and recommending directions for revising the provisions of the right to stop work in the Occupational Safety and Health Act.