From July 1st, limit on establishment of multiple unions was unleashed, and the single bargaining channel system to secure the unity of labor conditions and efficacy of bargaining was executed in Korea. Thus, operation and management of unions can be practiced independently by each unions, yet independent actions of unions such as conclusion or dispute on multiple groups bargaining and agreement came to be limited to the range allowed by the single bargaining channel system.
However, even after the practice of the single bargaining channel system until now, controversies on problems of current multiple unions are continuing, and diverse legal disputes are generating within and between unions, surrounding the bargaining process in managing multiple unions and practicing the single bargaining channel system. However, the revised union law and lower statues fail to involve clear interpretation surrounding these matters, and as a result, is generating serious tumult in applying the system.
Currently, it is worried that some users might use such loopholes in managing multiple union system and the single bargaining channel system, to act hostile toward certain unions through selecting individual bargaining among multiple unions, and generate discrimination between unions using all the methods they can. Such conflict involves the danger of developing into the bigger conflict between union and users, and even into the conflict within whole Korean industrial society. If the users continue their hostile activity toward certain unions based on the logic of power, not on established trust between unions and firms, it would lead to the result of the single bargaining channel system for multiple unions in industry threatening the existence of certain unions. This would again reveal the limits of the single bargaining channel system itself, and might lead to the dispute on revising union law.
In this terms, to recover trust on law and trust between union-firm relationship, users need to be cautious in utilizing the single bargaining channel system in individual bargaining agreements between multiple unions so that the original purpose of the system is not harmed. Moreover, in case which a majority of unions exist within bargaining unit, bargaining in group with confirmed representative union or bargaining between co-bargain representatives as encouraged by the single bargaining channel system would be an effective way to minimize or eradicate union-firm conflict and illegitimate labor behavior problems regarding relationship with certain unions in individual bargaining.
Thus, except the case in which independent bargaining system is essential, such as union organization form, users should aim formation of group order by uniting the bargaining channel in one, as the original purpose of the single bargaining channel system stipulates, and avoid individual bargaining based on agreement by the users that generates conflict between unions and hostile relationship between users and unions.
Also, in case of bargaining between minimal number of unions in which the group agreement is yet established, considering the purpose of the single bargaining channel system, admitting the appliance of expansion of the efficacy of group agreement is encouraged. The court should establish a precedent on it so that it can resolve problems of illegitimate labor activities, at least in regulatory aspects including labor conditions, which are generated from individual bargaining based on agreements of users.
Putting all the above interpretational problems aside, the effort to go by the process of the single bargaining channel is required. The fact that the system is seriously threatened by the individual bargaining based on users" content is something to be worried. Thus, to resolve individual bargaining and illegitimate labor activities that cause many problems, active role of illegitimate labor activities system is required to settle the single bargaining channel system.