Work Rules Revision in Korea: Recent Important Court Ruling on Procedural Requirements

Work rules does have an actual impact on the employee’s working conditions. What makes it difficult to revise is that if anything that can lower an employee's pay or benefits, this would require consent from the employees.

This post covers the basic legal framework first, then the new decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Korea on 25 June 2026.

The Basic Rule: Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act

Under Article 94, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer cannot unilaterally impose a disadvantageous change to work rules. The employer needs consent from the employees.

If a labor union represents a majority of the employees, that union's consent is enough. If there is no majority union, the employer needs consent from a majority of the employees themselves. But that consent cannot come from scattered, individual sign-offs. Korean courts require a "collective decision-making method." This is mean to provide employees a chance to discuss in groups. In practice, this means employees exchange views, discuss the change among themselves, and reach a collective position, typically through some form of all-hands meeting before they vote.

The new case involved a large retail group running department stores, supermarkets, and a home shopping business. In 2014, the company extended its retirement age from 57 to 60 and introduced a wage peak system, which reduces pay in the years before retirement.

To secure employee consent, the company posted the revised rules on its company intranet. Employees then had about seven days to click either "agree" or "disagree." Out of 4,906 employees, roughly 78%, or 3,857 people, clicked agree.

The lower court accepted this as valid. The Supreme Court reversed. Its reasoning matters for every employer with more than a handful of staff.

First, briefing sessions held only for managers did not count as a meeting of the workforce as a whole. Second, an individual online consent process, even one that reaches well over 50%, does not substitute for collective decision-making. Employees need a real opportunity to talk to each other, by department or by branch, form a shared view, and then register it. The Court found no evidence that any such discussion process took place. Third, the notice itself was insufficient. It offered no real explanation of the changes, only a side-by-side table comparing the old and new rules. Employees may not have understood that clicking "agree" meant exercising their consent right over a disadvantageous change to their own compensation. Fourth, a seven-day window was not enough time, especially given the company's employees were spread across branches nationwide with no meaningful chance to organize a collective response.

The Court's conclusion was direct: a majority of individual clicks is not the same as a majority of collective consent, no matter how high the percentage.

What This Means for Employers in Korea

Before rolling out any change to compensation, retirement age, or benefits, employers should build in an actual collective process: clear written explanations of what is changing and why, real opportunities for employees to discuss the change among themselves by team or branch, and a documented record of that process, not just a tally of clicks.

---

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific work rules issue, please consult qualified Korean counsel. Please also feel free to reach out to us.

© 2026 SJ Chun. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, copied, or republished, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from the author.