The legal basis for applying the 52-hour workweek system not on a weekly basis but by settlement period (e.g., 1 month) and the reasons are as follows.

Legal Basis

#

1. Labor Standards Act Articles 51 and 52
   • The Labor Standards Act allows flexible working hours and selective working hours as part of a flexible work system.
   • The flexible working hours system allows averaging the weekly working hours to 40 over a specific period (within 2 weeks or 3 months). Even if hours exceed 52 in a specific week, it is not considered a violation as long as the overall average for the settlement period does not exceed the legal standard¹².
   • The selective working hours system operates to ensure that the average weekly hours do not exceed 40 during the settlement period (maximum 1 month), allowing for specific weeks to exceed 52 hours².
2. Labor Standards Act Enforcement Rules Article 9
   • When implementing a flexible working schedule, it is sufficient to comply with the legal working hours on average within the settlement period (40 hours a week). In this case, overtime is assessed based on the entire settlement period, not weekly².
3. Written Agreement with Worker Representatives
   • To introduce a flexible working schedule, a written agreement with worker representatives must specify the detailed operating methods³².

Reasons for Applying Settlement Period

#

1. Response to Fluctuations in Workload
   • Industries where work volume spikes at certain times (e.g., manufacturing, IT, advertising) can increase hours during specific weeks and decrease them in others to enhance efficiency. This allows companies to maintain productivity while complying with legal standards².
2. Securing Flexibility for Workers and Companies
   • The flexible work system enables employees to adjust their work hours, promoting work-life balance. At the same time, companies can maximize workforce efficiency¹².
3. Legal Compliance and Avoiding Penalties
   • Strict weekly application increases the likelihood of legal violations due to unexpected workload increases or emergencies. Utilizing a settlement period helps mitigate these risks and avoid legal penalties¹⁴.

In conclusion, implementing the 52-hour workweek system by utilizing settlement periods is legally permissible and considers both corporate productivity and worker flexibility.

What Discussions Led to the Application of the 52-Hour Workweek System?

#

In the process of introducing the 52-hour workweek system, various discussions were held regarding the need to reduce working hours and the practical application methods. The main discussions and background of decisions are as follows.

Background and Discussion Process

#

1. Need to Improve Long Working Hours
   • South Korea is one of the countries with the longest annual working hours among OECD nations, second only to Mexico, leading to serious deterioration of workers’ health and quality of life⁵⁶.
   • The 52-hour workweek system was discussed as a means to reduce long working hours and achieve work-life balance⁶.
2. Expectations for Job Creation
   • There was hope that reducing working hours would lessen existing employees’ workloads and allow for new hires to supplement the insufficient workforce⁷, linking to policy goals of stimulating economic growth through job creation.
3. Legal Basis Provision
   • In February 2018, the National Assembly amended the Labor Standards Act to legalize the 52-hour workweek system, which gradually expanded its implementation starting from July that year in workplaces with over 300 employees⁷⁵.
4. Discussion on Introducing Flexible Working Systems
   • Considering the reality that applying the 52-hour workweek uniformly across all industries and businesses is difficult, discussions included introducing flexible working systems such as flexible working hours and selective working hours⁸⁹.
   • Especially in sectors like broadcasting, IT, and manufacturing, there was recognition that flexible work forms are essential due to the nature of the work⁸⁹.

Key Issues

#

1. Alleviating Burden on Small Businesses
   • Concerns were raised that small and micro-enterprises were not prepared in terms of workforce and costs. As a response, a grace period (deferral period) was introduced, along with supplementary legislation to extend the unit period for flexible working¹⁰⁹.
2. Need for Cooperation between Labor and Management
   • It was emphasized that cooperation between labor and management is essential for the smooth implementation of the 52-hour workweek system. Some companies formed joint labor-management task forces to discuss detailed applications of flexible working hours⁸.
3. Debate on Economic Impact
   • Questions arose regarding whether reducing working hours would actually lead to job creation, along with discussions on the increased burden of labor costs for companies. In response, the government stated it would combine phased implementation with administrative and financial support⁶¹¹.

Decided Direction

#

• The 52-hour workweek system was introduced based on policy goals of protecting public health and creating jobs, and it was implemented by providing a grace period while reflecting realistic difficulties with the concurrent introduction of flexible working systems.
• Continuous discussions are ongoing regarding additional measures tailored to industry characteristics and business sizes⁹⁶.

In conclusion, the 52-hour workweek system was established through social consensus to resolve issues of long working hours and induce structural changes in the labor market.