Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO294, June 1994

1. 218. The Committee already examined the substance of this case at its February and November 1993 meetings when it presented interim reports to the Governing Body (see 286th and 291st Reports of the Committee, paras. 514 to 575 and 395 to 426, respectively, approved by the Governing Body at its 255th and 258th Sessions (March and November 1993).
2. 219. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Korea Trade Union Congress (KTUC) presented additional allegations in communications dated 20 September and 14 October 1993 respectively. The Government supplied further observations in communications dated 5 January and 14 March 1994.
3. 220. Korea has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 221. The complainants presented allegations of violations of trade union rights of both a legislative and factual nature against the Government of Korea. First of all, they alleged that Korean labour law restricted the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing (in particular section 3(5) of the Trade Union Law), the right of public servants to organize (section 8(1) of that Law and section 66 of the National Public Officials Act), the right of private school teachers to unionize (section 58 of the Private School Act), the right of public servants to engage in collective action (section 66 of the National Public Officials Act, section 58 of the Local Government Employees Act and section 53(4) of the Public Education Servants Act) and prohibited third-party intervention in labour disputes (section 13(2) of the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act). On the factual aspects of the case, the complainants listed examples of government repression which were designed, in their opinion, to destroy the Korea Trade Union Congress (KTUC) which was created independently of the established union structure in January 1990 (namely the arrest of 177 named union leaders and members, the breakup of the KTUC's inaugural convention, the suspicious death in May 1991 of the KTUC Vice-President, Mr. Park Chang-soo, and unfair labour practices to discourage KTUC membership by employers such as Hyundai Construction and Engineering Company). The complainants also gave examples of government repression, allegedly designed to destroy other newly formed independent unions, particularly the Korean Teachers' and Educational Workers' Union (Chunkyojo) (nearly 1,500 dismissals, the prohibition of its annual congress, police searches of union premises, the arrest on 26 April 1991 of five named members, three of whom were still in detention, and the violent breakup of a gathering on 2 March 1992 calling for the reinstatement of the dismissed teachers).
2. 222. The Government acknowledged that there were legislative bans on the right of various categories of workers to organize and to take collective action and recognized the need for amendment of labour-related laws. It stressed that the Committee on Labour Laws (composed of representatives of labour, management and the public) as well as the Founders' Committee (composed of eight legal scholars) were conducting a systematic and intensive examination of labour-related legislation in order to bring it into line with Korea's rapidly changing industrial society. Moreover, the Government planned to submit these committees' proposed amendments to labour-related laws to the national Assembly some time during 1993 after holding public hearings. The Government did however dispute the complainants' allegations concerning certain incidents. It maintained that labour organizations like the KTUC and the teachers' union undertook collective action not for the improvement of workers' occupational interests but for the overthrow of the legitimate Government. Furthermore, the arrest of certain union leaders was not based on their union membership or activities but on criminal acts proven by due process before independent courts: of the 83 unionists who were arrested, 64 have been released, 19 remain in prison and none of the six who had lodged appeals against conviction won their cases although five were released upon the expiry of their sentences or after having received suspended sentences. According to the Government, the KTUC Vice-President, Mr. Park Chang-soo committed suicide in May 1991 since the post-mortem examination conducted on the day of his death did not indicate that he was murdered. Regarding the reinstatement of the almost 1,500 teachers who were dismissed because of their affiliation with Chunkyojo, the Government pointed out that members of the Chunkyojo had violated Korea's laws and that those who had refused to discontinue their illegal activities were finally punished according to Korea's legal codes. Therefore it seemed inappropriate for the Government to reinstate Chunkyojo teachers who continued illegal pursuits. Moreover, although the Government had prohibited the holding of the Chunkyojo's annual conventions in 1989, 1990 and 1991 because they had not respected the relevant provisions of the Assembly-Related Laws, no restrictions had been applied to other assemblies held by the Chunkyojo since May 1992.
3. 223. At its November 1993 session, in the light of the Committee's interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:
   • (a) As regards the proposed amendments to labour-related legislation, the Committee calls on the Government to ensure that they are in line with the principles of freedom of association and that they lead to a complete reform of the legislation. It reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal in giving effect to these recommendations.
   • (b) The Committee regrets that 19 arrested unionists have not yet been released but notes the Government's statement that they may be accorded special leniency. It insists that they be released immediately and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard. It further insists that Mr. Shin Seung-Chul, who lost his appeal against conviction, be freed immediately and requests the Government to confirm that this has been done.
   • (c) The Committee deplores that the Government did not deem it appropriate to take steps to reinstate the almost 1,500 Chunkyojo teachers who were dismissed for having exercised their right to form and join an organization of their choice and urges it once again to take the appropriate steps to ensure their reinstatement.
   • (d) The Committee recalls that the arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association and therefore requests the Government to ensure in future that such persons are not arrested or detained for such activities.
   • (e) As regards the death of the KTUC Vice-President, Mr. Park Chang-soo, the Committee recalls that when disorders have occurred involving loss of human life, the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry by the Government concerned is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible. It requests the Government to initiate such an independent inquiry and to keep it informed of the results thereof.
   • (f) As regards the alleged ban of the Chunkyojo congress, the Committee draws the attention of both the complainant and the Government to the principles according to which the right to hold trade union meetings cannot be interpreted as relieving organizations from the obligation to comply with reasonable formalities when they wish to make use of public premises and that trade unions should respect legal provisions which are intended to ensure the maintenance of public order while the public authorities should, for their part, refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions to organize the holding of their meetings in full freedom.
   • (g) The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that no person should be prejudiced in their employment by reason of membership of a trade union, even if that trade union is not recognized by the employer as representing the majority of workers concerned. It therefore requests the Government to take measures in order to give effect to the results of the investigations on alleged unfair labour practices engaged in by an employer against KTUC or KFCTU members, with the firm intention that those responsible for any such practices that might have occurred should be punished, and to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (h) As regards other alleged unfair labour practices, the Committee notes with interest that five officers of the Hyundai Construction Co. Union who were laid off unfairly have been reinstated in their jobs and that the Hyundai Construction and Engineering Company has been fined heavily due to acts of intimidation on the part of some members of its management to force workers to leave their union.
   • (i) The Committee requests the Government to furnish its observations on the allegations recently supplied by the ICFTU and the KTUC.

B. The complainants' further allegations

1. 224. In its communication of 20 September 1993, the ICFTU alleges that continued violations of freedom of association took place during July and August 1993. Following a series of strikes at leading Korean companies, arrest warrants were issued against several labour leaders on 7 July 1993 which were based on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention during the Hyundai strike at Ulsan City. The trade union leaders concerned were Messrs. Dan Byong-ho, President of the KTUC, Kwon Young-mok, Lee Shang-hyun, Oh Jong-shoe, Lee Soo-won and Lee Hong-woo. Rewards of 5 million won each were offered by the Government for the capture of the first five persons who managed to escape arrest. Furthermore, two other trade unionists, Lee Mok-hee and Moon Sung-hyun, are being sought by the police with an arrest order on charges of third party intervention. Of these eight trade unionists who were pursued, Lee Hong-woo and Kwon Yong-mok were arrested on 17 and 25 August respectively. Both are presently held in the detention house of the Ulsan Southern District Police Station.
2. 225. On 8 July 1993, the Inchon District Prosecutor issued urgent arrest letters without a judge's decision for the following three trade union leaders from the Daewoo Motor Union who were dismissed: Hong Young-pyo, Secretary of the Daewoo Group Trade Union Council; Lee Sung-jae; and You Kil-jong. All three were charged with third party intervention. Hong Young-pyo was arrested and is presently imprisoned in Inchong Prison.
3. 226. On 9 July, arrest warrants were issued on charges of trespass and business interference against two dismissed Daewoo unionists, Lee Eun-koo (former President of the Daewoo Motor Trade Union) and Seo Hee-taek (former First Vice-President) for assisting in collective bargaining. The next day, these unionists were arrested in Inchon again on charges of third party intervention. They had been engaged in a sit-down strike to demand reinstatement of dismissed unionists. Mr. Lee had already served 18 months in prison on third party interference charges after participating in a meeting which discussed solidarity action for the 1991 Daewoo shipyard strike. When collective bargaining was concluded, the management withdrew the charges and the prosecutor suspended the indictment. The unionists were released on 29 July. Also on 9 July, Choi Jae-woo, Kim Ik-tae and Kim Han-joo, dismissed unionists from Daelim Motors in Changwon City, were arrested on charges of violence after an argument with company guards by whom they were allegedly beaten.
4. 227. In the meantime, the strike at Hyundai contined. On 20 July, citing economic reasons, the Government invoked emergency powers to end the walkout even though union/management negotiations were under way. The ICFTU alleges that the Emergency Adjustment Provisions, an extract of which it attaches to its complaint (see Annex 1) and which are contained in the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act are in violation of freedom of association principles. It states that the Hyundai Motor Union ended its strike on 24 July to avoid compulsory arbitration and confrontation with some 20,000 riot troops who were being mobilized. Some 8,000 riot police had been already sent to Ulsan City to disperse strikers.
5. 228. Arrest warrants were issued on 20 July for five trade union officials in relation to the Hyundai Precision Factory strike in Changwon City, alleged by the Government to be an illegal action in the defence industry. These officials were Hwang Ho-nam, President, Hyundai Precision Trade Union, Choi Jong-ho, Choi Hyun-cheol, Kim Sung-dong and Joo Han-kung. Three were arrested: Kim Sung-dong (31 July), Joo Han-kyung (3 August), Choi Hyun-cheol (9 August) and are being held in Masan Prison. The Government offered a reward of 5 million won for the capture of Hwang Ho-nam and Choi Jong-ho who escaped arrest. Two other Hyundai Precision Trade Union officers, Han Jae-kwan and Moon Jinho, were arrested on 21 July for having participated in an illegal strike. They are also being held in Masan Prison. The ICFTU adds that the charges applied in the arrests at the Hyundai Precision Factory in Changwon are based on articles 12-2 and 45-2 of the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act which prohibit the right to strike in the defence industry.
6. 229. The ICFTU contends that despite repeated assurances given to it and international trade secretariats concerning a rapid reform of labour law, the Korean Labour Ministry announced on 24 August that the planned amendment of legislation would be delayed. An official commented that the Ministry decided not to pursue amendments to five labour-related laws that year since any change in industrial relations would harm the national economy. In addition, according to a 12 September article in the Hankycore Shinmun newspaper citing Labour Ministry sources, the Government is planning to submit labour law amendments at an extraordinary session of the National Assembly in June 1994 following completion of 1994 wage negotiations. However, the ICFTU points out that in reality, June special sessions of the National Assembly rarely take place and wage negotiations are never completed by then.
7. 230. The ICFTU finally contends that the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association have been totally ignored by the Korean Government. For example, although a repeal of the ban on third party intervention was urged by the Committee, most of the current violations centre on this issue and third party intervention was used as the principal charge in issuing arrest warrants for trade union leaders during July and August 1993. Moreover, there does not appear to have been any follow up to the Committee's recommendations concerning the repeal of trade union monopoly, the ban on civil servants' and teachers' unions and the inability of these two groups of workers to engage in collective action. The ICFTU concludes by stating that the decision of the Labour Ministry not to seek any reforms in labour legislation during 1993 confirms the Government's decision to continue sacrificing trade union rights for economic gain.
8. 231. In its communication of 14 October 1993, the KTUC submits that it would like to supplement the complaint in respect of the following three legal restrictions on freedom of association: the ban on the right to strike of civil servants and workers employed in the defence industry; the denial of the right to strike in the public services through the imposition of compulsory arbitration; and the administrative authority's control of and intervention in internal trade union affairs. The KTUC attaches a copy of the relevant provisions of the Labour Disputes Adjustment Act and the Trade Union Act to its complaint (see Annex 2).
9. 232. As regards the first restriction, the KTUC submits that article 12, paragraph 2 of the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act (LDAA) deprives public servants and workers in the defence industry of the right to strike regardless of the nature of duties they perform. The KTUC considers this restriction to be contrary to the principles on freedom of association since in its view, the defence industry is not an essential service whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.
10. 233. With respect to the restriction on the right to strike in public enterprises, the KTUC states that by virtue of article 30, paragraph 3 of the LDAA, the Labour Relations Commission can refer strikes in the public service to arbitration at its discretion or at the request of the administrative authority. Furthermore, article 4 of the LDAA stipulates an extensive category of the public service: public transportation business; water, electricity, gas supply and petroleum refinery business; public hygiene and medical business; banking business; and broadcasting and communication business. The right to strike in the public service depends entirely on the discretion of the Labour Relations Commission and thus infringes freedom of association principles.
11. 234. Finally, the KTUC contends that the Trade Union Act (TUA) has a number of provisions that empower the administrative authority to control and intervene unjustly in a trade union's autonomous operations, the typical provisions of which are: authority to order modification of a union's constitution (article 16); authority to order modification of a union resolution and disposition (article 21); authority to nominate a convocator of a union's extraordinary congress (article 26(3) and (4)); authority to investigate into union's internal affairs (article 30); and authority to order modification or nullification of collective agreements (article 34(3)).
12. 235. In addition, the KTUC provides certain examples of acts of government interference in the internal affairs of different trade unions. Regarding the authority to order the modification of a union's constitution, the KTUC states that on 5 June 1992 the Kyungju Municipal Government ordered the Myungji Industry Trade Union to modify the union's constitution on the following two grounds. First, the administrative authority considered the provision of the union constitution prescribing that "the union congress shall have the power to conclude a collective agreement, the union president shall sign the collective agreement and the collective agreement shall be approved by the union congress" to be a fundamental restriction on the union president's inherent right to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement, and therefore ordered that this article be modified. Secondly, the provision stipulating "in case the president refuses convocation of union congress of delegates' convention, the representative of those requesting convocation of the meetings shall be a convocator" was considered to be a fundamental restriction on the administrative authority's power to nominate a convocator and the administrative authority ordered the modification of this provision.
13. 236. As regards the administrative authority's right to nominate a convocator of the union congress, the KTUC gives the example of the Seoul Subway which is a public enterprise owned by Seoul City where the union has a membership of about 8,000. On 9 July 1991, 6,043 union members signed a document calling for the union president's resignation when he concluded the collective agreement at his own discretion without any agreement from union members in June 1991. On 11 August, these union members called for the convocation of an extraordinary congress. Since the union president rejected the members' request, the latter submitted a request for nomination of a convocator of an extraordinary congress to the Ministry of Labour on 16 September. This request was signed by 4,883 union members in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. However the Ministry delayed nomination of a convocator for seven months during which period the trade union could not engage in normal union functions and activities. The Ministry finally nominated a convocator on 3 April 1993 following fierce pressure from union members.
14. 237. Concerning the administrative authority's right to investigate a union's internal affairs, the KTUC states that in February 1990 the Korea West Electrical trade union situated in the Masan Free Trade Zone received a letter from the regional office of the Ministry of Labour saying it would investigate the union's affairs. The union refused to accept the investigation and blocked a labour inspector's visit to the union office in July 1990. The court imposed a fine of 200,000 won and 400,000 won on the union president and the union respectively through a summary trial. The union appealed through formal proceedings but its appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in August 1991. In the KTUC's view, the investigation at that time was designed to repress a KTUC affiliated union. In another instance, the KTUC contends that the Government issued an arrest warrant for Mrs. Cha Soo-rhyun, President of Hanyang University Hospital trade union in February 1990 on the grounds that she refused an investigation into the union. She was arrested later in 1991 and served two months in prison until the court suspended the execution of her sentence.
15. 238. Finally, regarding the authority to order the modification or nullification of a collective agreement, the KTUC states that the collective agreement agreed upon on 20 November 1990 between the management and union of Ssangyong Heavy Industry located in Changwon City contained an article stipulating that "while the union president is entitled to sign a collective agreement, the collective agreement shall be signed by all the negotiation committee in accordance with the result of the union members' congress". However, Changwon Municipal Office, arguing that the union president had the power to sign a collective agreement which would come into force regardless of a resolution of the union congress, ordered that this article be modified. The union initiated administrative proceedings at Pusan High Court and the case is now pending.

C. The Government's further replies

1. 239. In its communication of 5 January 1994, the Government provides its observations on the ICFTU's allegations concerning the Government's invocation of the Emergency Adjustment Provisions contained in the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act (LDAA) with respect to the 1993 strike at Hyundai, the pursuit and arrest of strikers, and the delay in the amendment of labour laws.
2. 240. First of all, the Government explains the background and rationale for the imposition of the Emergency Adjustment provisions on the Hyundai strike. It states that the strike at Hyundai lasted over one month after 16 June 1993, showing signs of further deterioration. The Ministry of Labour, judging that no peaceful autonomous settlement between labour and management was found to be feasible, invoked emergency powers to end the walkout. The decision was made in consultation with the Central Labour Relations Commission, as stipulated in article 40-2 of the LDAA. The Hyundai Motor Company, a leading automobile manufacturer employing 40,600 workers with annual production of 859,000 cars (equivalent to 6,079 trillion won as of 1992), underwent plant closure of more than one month after the strike began on 16 June. The economic loss due to this lengthy strike was enormous; estimated sale loss, 39.57 billion won; estimated export loss, US$128 million; total sale loss to 2,468 subcontractors (225,000 workers) due to shutdown because of the strike at their parent company, 27.7 billion won. Thus, the loss totalled 67.27 billion won.
3. 241. Considering such a tremendous impact of the strike on the national economy as well as people's daily lives, the Minister of Labour and others concerned in the Ministry of Labour visited the site several times and urged autonomous settlement between labour and management through dialogue. Both parties concerned, however, stuck to their own positions, and never attempted to reach a compromise. Despite the Government's steady efforts, appeals by subcontractors as well as communities, both manager and union strikers were steadfast. Invocation of emergency powers was a final resort after such various efforts. However, even in the midst of invocation of emergency powers, the Government did not give up its attempts to urge the Hyundai union and the company to search for a peaceful solution. Accordingly, both labour and management at Hyundai, came to an autonomous agreement on 23 July. It was put to the unionized workers' votes and was passed by majority vote (50.08 per cent).
4. 242. Concerning arrest warrants on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention, the Government contends that the LDAA (article 13-2) and Trade Union Act (article 12-2) prohibit the undertaking of acts of interference, in the operation of a trade union or in a dispute, for the purpose of manipulating, investigating, or any other act by a third party in order to influence the parties concerned. The stipulation prohibiting third party intervention is a systematic device that preserves the union's autonomy and democracy from interference or intervention by external powers other than an employee who has actual employment relations with the employer or trade union and an employer concerned or having legitimate authority under the relevant laws. In addition, the Constitutional Court judged on 15 January 1990 that third party intervention provision was not against the Constitution (Constitutional Court Case No. 89-103).
5. 243. Concerning details of the number and names of workers either pursued or arrested in connection with the 1993 Hyundai strike on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention, the Government refers to the following table.
   • Korean trade union leaders currently imprisoned or in hiding (1 January-15 October 1993)
   • Korean trade union leaders recently imprisoned
     • ------------------------------------------------------------------
   • Name Company involved Arrest Remarks ------------------------------------------------------------------
   • KWON Yang Mok Hyundai Shipyard 25 August
   • LEE Hong-Woo Hyundai Motor 17 August Service
   • HONG Young-Pyo Daewoo Motor 8 July
   • OH Jong-Shae Hyundai Shipyard 11 October
   • CHOI Hyun-Cheol Hyundai Precision 9 August Released (28 September)
   • KIM Sung-Dong Hyundai Precision 31 July Released (28 September)
   • MOON Jin-Ho Hyundai Precision 31 July Released (28 September)
   • HAN Jae-Kwan Hyundai Precision 21 July Released (28 September)
   • JOO Han-Kyung Hyundai Precision 3 August Released (28 September) ------------------------------------------------------------------
   • Korean trade union leaders wanted by the police
     • ------------------------------------------------------------------
   • Name Trade union ------------------------------------------------------------------
   • DAN Byung-Ho KTUC
   • LEE Shang-Hyun KTUC
   • LEE Su-Won Huyndai Shipyard
   • HWANG Ho-Nam Hyundai Precision
   • CHOI Jong-Ho Hyundai Precision ------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 244. The Government contends, however, that some of the ICFTU's allegations are incorrect. Rewards of 5 million won placed on Dan Byung-Ho, Kwon Young-Mok, Lee Shang-Hyun, Oh Jong-Shoe, Lee Soon-Won, etc., were withdrawn on 20 August 1993. No arrest warrants were issued against Lee Mok-Hee and Moon Sung-Hyun, nor was a manhunt undertaken against them on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention. Lee Eun-Koo and Seo Hee-Taek were not under detention on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention in connection with their acts related to Daewoo union and management negotiations. They were, however, arrested on charges of trespass and business interference criminally on 9 July 1993 and released on 22 July. On 9 July, Choi Jae-Woo, Kim Ik-Tae and Kim Han-Joo were arrested on charges of violence against the Director of Assembly Department, Daelim Motors on 8 May and they were released on 23 September. They were, however, never arrested on charges of violating labour laws.
7. 245. As regards alleged delaying tactics about labour law amendments, the Government submits that it has treated labour law reforms as a top priority pending the matter and has, therefore, followed various procedural steps toward unbiased, just and balanced amendment of labour laws. However, since the second half of 1993, the national economy has been sluggish, and worse still, the concerned parties, labour and management, have shown sharp conflicts over the direction as well as the contents of the reform. Under these circumstances, it was judged by the Government that the amendment be postponed until some time next year for the reason that the amendment should not be made in a hectic way, but by taking into account both interests of all the concerned parties and those of the nation.
8. 246. In its communication of 14 March 1994, the Government replies to the KTUC's additional complaint of October 1993 as well as to the recommendations formulated by the Committee at its November 1993 meeting. The Government first of all provides its observations in respect of the prohibition of the right to strike for public officials and defence industry workers.
9. 247. Regarding public officials' right to strike, the Government explains that article 33 of the Constitution of Korea provides that workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining and collective action (paragraph (1)), and only those public officials who are designated by law shall have those rights (paragraph (2)). Hence, some public officials engaged in manual labour, such as technical and manual workers at the Ministry of Communications, Office of Railroads and National Medical Center, enjoy the right to organize trade unions and collective bargaining with the administrative agency as prescribed in the National Public Officials Act (article 66) and the Local Public Officials Act (article 58). In addition, the Government indicates that article 12(2) of the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act (LDAA) which restricts the right to collective action by public officials, including manual workers, was judged to be incompatible with the contents of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court in March 1993. In the Government's view, the Court's judgement intends to clarify that article 12(2) is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution rendering the right to collective action to specific public officials. Therefore, article 12(2) of the LDAA will be amended by the end of 1995 to make it compatible with the purpose of the Constitution as indicated in the judgement of the Constitutional Court.
10. 248. Regarding workers' right to strike in the defence industry, the Government states that article 33(3) of the Constitution provides that the right to collective action by workers working at major defence industries may be either restricted or denied under the conditions prescribed by law. As a consequence, defence industry workers are prohibited from collective action by the LDAA. The Government describes the reasons why the right of defence industry workers to collective action is denied. With the continuing and serious hostility of North Korea directed against the South, top priority must be given to the uninterrupted operation of enterprises manufacturing strategic and tactical equipment, materials and services for national security. The growing tension resulting from the North Korean nuclear threats has amplified the grave concern of the Korean Government and has further necessitated the uninterrupted operation of defence enterprises. Due to the aforesaid situation, the Government cannot simply lift restrictions on workers' rights to collective action in major defence industries. However, in case labour disputes arise in these industries, the Government will strive to ensure that related workers' rights are fairly and promptly guaranteed.
11. 249. Concerning the restriction of the right of workers to strike at public utilities, the Government indicates that on condition that essential aspects of these rights are not violated, these rights may be restricted by law only when necessary for national security, maintenance of law and order or for public welfare (article 37(2) of the Constitution). In this context, the LDAA provides that with respect to a public utility, the Labour Relations Commission may refer a dispute to arbitration upon request from the administrative authority or ex officio. Contrary to the KTUC's assertions, the Government strictly defines the scope of public utilities in order to prevent placing workers at a disadvantage due to the loosely defined classification of public utility workers. Article 4 of the LDAA defines the scope of public utilities as those enterprises which are essential to the daily life of the general public, and in which suspension or discontinuance of their activities would seriously endanger the national economy. Once made, agreements reached between labour and management are always honoured, even following public utility labour disputes referred to arbitration by the Labour Relations Commission. When an arbitration award is deemed unlawful or an abuse of power, the case may be referred to administrative litigation to guarantee workers' rights.
12. 250. The Government then addresses the KTUC's various allegations concerning the administrative authority's control over and intervention in a trade union's internal affairs. Regarding orders to modify and supplement trade union by-laws, the Government indicates that article 14 of the Trade Union Act (TUA) calls for a trade union to specify in its by-laws the union's name, the address of its main office and certain matters concerning union members. Article 16 stipulates that in case any provision of the union by-laws conflicts with labour-related laws and decrees, the administrative authority may, with the approval of the Labour Relations Commission, order an amendment or supplementation to the by-laws. These legal provisions aim at securing the autonomous and democratic operation of a trade union through the elimination of any undemocratic or unreasonable provisions in union by-laws. These legal provisions are not intended to restrict the discretion of a trade union to draw up its by-laws but rather to assure that union by-laws do not conflict with labour-related laws and regulations. Therefore, the provisions cannot be interpreted as restricting a union's right to enact its by-laws autonomously.
13. 251. Regarding orders to correct resolutions or measures of a trade union, article 21 of the TUA provides that if a resolution or measure taken by a trade union is deemed to conflict with labour related laws and regulations, the administrative authority may order it to be corrected by a resolution of the Labour Relations Commission. The Government explains that since 1987, a tremendous number of new trade unions have come into existence in Korea without sufficient operational knowledge and experience. They have caused organizational conflicts by misinterpreting laws, regulations and by-laws concerning such activities as the election of leaders and the arrangement of resolutions or measures. Thus, they have frequently undermined unity within trade unions by operating in undemocratic and unreasonable ways. Orders by the authorities to rectify unjust resolutions and measures are aimed at minimizing unfair practices. Therefore, such orders should not be regarded as a means of disturbing, interfering with, or overturning the lawful or reasonable actions of a trade union.
14. 252. Regarding the authority to convoke an extraordinary general meeting of a trade union, the Government states that paragraph (1) of article 26 of the TUA provides that the trade union representative may convene an extraordinary general meeting or council of delegates at any time deemed necessary. Paragraph (3) provides that if the trade union representative has intentionally avoided or neglected convening the said meeting, the administrative authority may nominate a convocator upon approval of the Labour Relations Commission. Paragraph (4) provides that when there is no person entitled to convene a general meeting or council of delegates and when one-third or more of the members or delegates request the administrative authority to nominate a convocator for the meeting or council, the authority may nominate a person to convene the meeting. The Government submits that these provisions aim to achieve the continuation of normal trade union activities by precluding prolonged problems of operation caused by intentional neglect of duty.
15. 253. Regarding investigation of trade union operations, article 30 of the TUA provides that if necessary, the administrative authority may ask a trade union to present its account, books and other related documents for examination. Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for an examination of management when appeals, petitions or accusations are filed with the authority, when mediation or guidance is invited due to organizational conflicts within trade unions, and when guidance is deemed necessary for the normal management of accounting, finance and other businesses of the trade union. As mentioned in the Enforcement Decree of the TUA, the administrative authority is not entitled to undertake examination of trade union management at its own convenience or discretion, but only when appeals or accusations against a trade union are filed and the authority is requested to examine the controversy. These laws should not be interpreted as disturbing or interfering with the normal operation of a trade union as claimed in the complaint.
16. 254. Regarding the authority to change a collective agreement, the Government explains that article 34(3) of the TUA provides that the administrative authority may order changes to or cancellation of the contents of a collective agreement if they are found to be illegal or unjustifiable, upon a resolution of the Labour Relations Commission. Labour and management make decisions concerning the contents of the contract at their discretion. If the contents are found to contradict labour-related laws, regulations and prevalent social norms, those sections are to be corrected by a resolution of the Labour Relations Commission. This is not a restriction on the right to draw up collective agreements. With respect to the case of Ssangyong Heavy Industry Co., the Supreme Court ruled that only the union representative was legally entitled to collective bargaining and collective agreement and that the union's by-laws regulating restrictions of the right of a representative ran counter to related laws.
17. 255. Finally, the Government provides information on measures taken to comply with the recommendations formulated by the Committee at its November 1993 meeting. First of all, as regards the 19 detained unionists, the Government states that "... sixteen out of the nineteen unionists whose releases were requested by the Committee have already been released and only three are now in prison (Annex 3)" The Government stresses that the remaining three detainees were not arrested on grounds of activities purely connected with the exercise of their trade union rights; they were arrested and prosecuted for criminal offenses, such as destruction and arson of factory equipment, as would be done in any other civilized country. They were provided with fair trials and their crimes were judged by an independent judiciary. Moreover, recently the Government released some unionists who committed similar crimes in other cases pursuant to a presidential pardon and reinstatement. The above three unionists still have a chance of being pardoned provided that they repent for their crimes. Regarding the request for the release of Mr. Shin Seung-Chul, the Government states that Mr. Shin Seung-Chul was released on parole on 24 December 1993.
18. 256. As regards the recommendation to set up an independent judicial inquiry in respect of the death of the KTUC Vice-President, Mr. Park Chang-Soo, the Government replies that in the case of an unnatural death, a public prosecutor who has independent investigating authority inquires into the cause of death, and participates in a post-mortem or autopsy in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law. In the case of the death of Mr. Park Chang-Soo, an autopsy was carried out in accordance with the laws concerned. Furthermore, the suspicion of homicide was cleared, as explained in the Government's previous reply. Therefore, the case was closed. The Government considers that the Committee's request for re-examination of the case appears to be unacceptable because the case has already been fully investigated and a decision finalized under the current legal system.
19. 257. Concerning the Committee's request for reinstatement of the almost 1,500 dismissed teachers, the Government states that resolution of the issue appears close at hand. The new Government has demonstrated its commitment to settling this problem by holding five rounds of talks with the Chunkyogo, in order to reach a feasible solution through consultations. Despite the negative view of the Chunkyogo held by some in the education community, the Government has taken steps to have the Chunkyogo teachers return to their jobs but on condition that they withdraw their membership of the Chunkyojo. A special statement on the reinstatement of dismissed Chunkyogo teachers was issued by the Minister of Education on 24 July 1993. Having understood the image of teachers held by the public, the majority of dismissed teachers responded positively to the Government's measures. Ninety-five per cent (1,419 out of 1,490) of the dismissed teachers filed applications to return to teaching positions after giving up their Chunkyogo membership. The head of the Chunkyogo herself has announced that she will persuade those teachers who are still resisting to return to their jobs.
20. 258. Despite opposition from private schools, principals and parents, the Government continues to attempt to persuade dismissed teachers to cooperate in the reinstatement programme. The Government has requested that educational superintendents in each municipal and provincial education bureau show leniency in rehiring dismissed teachers. A Chrismas pardon was granted on 24 December 1992 to 135 teachers detained in association with the Chunkyogo and 39 imprisoned for criminal offenses, to remove legal impediments for those who applied for reinstatement. Interviews and job application reviews are under way in municipal and provincial education bureaux so that those who have applied for jobs may return to teaching during the 1994 spring term.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 259. The Committee notes that the ICFTU's additional allegations in this case concern mostly the issuing of arrest warrants against several trade union leaders by the Government following a series of strikes at different Korean companies during July and August 1993. The ICFTU further alleges that violation of the prohibition of third party intervention was used as the principal charge in issuing these arrest warrants. The Committee notes the Government's admission that a number of trade unionists were indeed arrested (Messrs. Kwon Yong-Mok, Lee Hong-Woo, Hong Young-Pyo, Oh Jong-Shae, Choi Hyun-Cheol, Kim Sung-Dong, Moon Jin-Ho, Han Jae Kwan and Joo Han-Kyung) or are wanted by the police (Dan Byung-Ho, Lee Shang-Hyun, Lee Su-Won, Hwang Ho-Nam and Choi Jong-Ho) for violating the ban on third party intervention. The Government justifies this prohibition on the grounds that it preserves a union's autonomy from interference or intervention by external sources. The Committee, however, expresses its serious concern over the fact that the above arrest warrants were based on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention and would remind the Government, as it has done so on a previous occasion (see 286th Report of the Committee,para. 564) that such a prohibition constitutes a serious restriction on the free functioning of trade unions and should therefore be repealed. It further recalls that the arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, paras. 87 and 88). Moreover, while observing that a number of the above-mentioned trade unionists have been released, the Committee regrets that Messrs. Kwon Yong-Mok, Lee Hong-Woo, Hong Young-Pyo and Oh Jong-Shae are still in prison and that Messrs. Dan Byung-Ho, Lee Shang-Hyun, Lee Su-Won, Hwang Ho-Nam and Choi Jong-Ho who escaped arrest are wanted by the police. It therefore urges the Government to release those who remain in prison and to withdraw the charges against those who are still being pursued.
2. 260. The Committee notes, however, that the Government refutes the ICFTU's allegations in respect of a number of other trade unionists. The Government asserts that no arrest warrants were issued against Messrs. Lee Mok-Hee and Moon Sung-Hyun nor are they being sought by the police on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention. In addition, Messrs. Lee Eun-Koo and Seo Hee-Taek were not arrested on charges of violating the prohibition of third party intervention, but on criminal charges of trespass and business interference on 9 July 1993. They were released on 22 July. Finally, Choi Jae-Woo, Kim Ik-Tae and Kim Han-Joo were arrested on charges of violence against the Director of the Assembly Department, Daelim Motors on 9 July 1993 and released on 23 September. They were, however, never arrested on charges of violating labour laws as alleged by the ICFTU. In view of the contradiction between these two statements, the Committee can only recall the principle that while persons engaged in trade union activities, or holding trade union office, cannot claim immunity in respect of the ordinary criminal law, trade union activities should not in themselves be used by the public authorities as a pretext for the arbitrary arrest or detention of trade unionists (see Digest, op. cit, para. 90).
3. 261. As regards the strike at the Hyndai Motor Company, the Committee notes the ICFTU's contention that citing economic reasons on 20 July, the Government invoked emergency powers to end the walk-out even though union/management negotiations were under way whereas the Government states that the strike which had already lasted over one month showed signs of further deterioration obliging the Ministry of Labour to invoke emergency powers to end the walk-out which had resulted in an enormous economic loss. In this connection, the Committee notes that under the terms of article 40(1) of the Emergency Adjustment Provisions, the Minister of Labour "may render a decision for an emergency adjustment in case an act of dispute is related to the public interest, or is of a large scale or of a specific character, and that, because of such an act of dispute there exists the same danger which might impair the national economy or endanger the daily life of the general public". The Committee further notes that the cumulative effect of articles 41, 43 and 44 could be to submit such a dispute to compulsory arbitration, thereby restricting the right to strike. The Committee would, however, draw the Government's attention once again to the principle that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service - civil servants being those who act on behalf of the public authorities - or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (See Digest, op. cit., para. 394). While mindful of the impact of the said strike on the national economy, including estimated export losses, the Committee does not consider that a leading automobile manufacturer provides essential services. The Committee therefore requests the Government to refrain in future from having recourse to the Emergency Adjustment Provisions contained in the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act (LDAA) in services that are not essential.
4. 262. Regarding the KTUC's additional allegations, the Committee notes that they are mainly of a legislative nature. As regards the prohibition of the right to strike for public officials, the Committee notes that the KTUC's argument which the Government does not refute that article 12(2) of the LDAA deprives public servants of the right to strike regardless of the nature of duties they perform. The Committee further notes the Government's statement that as article 12(2) of the LDAA was considered to be incompatible with the provision of the Constitution rendering the right to collective action to specific public officials, it will be amended by the end of 1995 to make it compatible with the purpose of the Constitution. In this respect, the Committee recalls the principle that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and requests the Government to take steps to ensure that article 12(2) of the LDAA will be amended in line with this principle, as soon as possible.
5. 263. As regards the ban on the right to strike of workers employed in the defence industry, the Committee notes the various reasons enumerated by the Government as to why the right to collective action is denied to workers in the defence industry. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the country, the Committee considers that in the present case the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the defence industry while these specific conditions continue.
6. 264. With respect to the right to strike in public enterprises, the Committee observes that under the terms of article 30(3) of the LDAA, the Labour Relations Commission may refer a dispute to arbitration upon the request of the administrative authority or ex officio, thereby restricting the right to strike in public enterprises. The Committee notes, however, that article 4 of the LDAA stipulates quite a broad category of public utility services which do not all constitute essential services. This is notably the case for public transportation business (article 4(1)), petroleum refinery business (article 4(2)), banking business (article 4(4)) and broadcasting and communication business (article 4(5)) (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 400-410). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to ensure that article 4 of the LDAA is amended so that the right to strike in public enterprises is restricted only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, as defined earlier on in its conclusions.
7. 265. As regards the KTUC's contention that the Trade Union Act (TUA) has a number of provisions that empower the administrative authority to control and intervene in a trade union's autonomous operations, the Committee notes that articles 16 and 21 respectively of the TUA enable the administrative authority, with the approval of the tripartite Labour Relations Commission, to order the modification of a union's constitution or resolution if they violate labour laws and decrees. Similarly, article 26(3) and (4) enables the administrative authority, with the approval of the Labour Relations Commission, to nominate a convocator of an extraordinary general meeting of the union under certain conditions mentioned in these provisions. The Committee notes that the KTUC gives concrete examples of how the above provisions have been applied in practice which amount to administrative interference in a trade union's internal affairs. In this connection, the Committee is of the view that in order for the right of workers' organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules in full freedom to be fully guaranteed, national legislation should only lay down formal requirements as regards trade union constitutions, and the constitutions and rules should not be subject to prior approval at the discretion of the public authorities. It therefore requests the Government to ensure that the above provisions of the TUA are amended and applied accordingly.
8. 266. As regards article 30 of the TUA which enables the administrative authority to ask a trade union to submit its accounting status or other necessary documents for investigation when the authority deems it necessary, the Committee considers that this provision entails a risk of undue administrative interference into the internal affairs of a trade union. In this connection, the Committee recalls the principle that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports and that the inspection and furnishing of information whenever required by the authorities at their discretion entail a danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions (see Digest, op. cit., para. 333). The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that article 30 of the TUA is amended and applied in line with the principle enunciated above.
9. 267. Finally, regarding article 34(3) of the TUA which enables the administrative authority to change or cancel the contents of a collective agreement if they are found to be illegal or unjustifiable, the Committee considers that this provision entails a risk of violation of the principle of the autonomy of the parties to the collective bargaining process, as demonstrated by the example of the Ssangyong Heavy Industry Co., described by the KDTUC. It follows from this principle that the public authorities should not, as a rule, intervene in order to modify the contents of collective agreements which have been freely concluded (see Digest, op. cit., para. 593). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to ensure that article 34(3) is amended in line with the principle enunciated above.
10. 268. Furthermore, the Committee would remind the Government that while organizations should respect the law of the land, the law should respect freedom of association principles.
11. 269. Turning to the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Committee's recommendations formulated at its November 1993 meeting, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it has decided to postpone amendments to labour-related legislation until some time in 1995 since the national economy has been sluggish and labour and management have shown sharp conflicts over the direction as well as the contents of the reform. The Committee regrets to note this information given the Government's acknowledgement earlier on of the need to revise its labour-related legislation and its assurances that such amendments would be submitted to the National Assembly in 1993. Given that the Government has expressed its determination to help achieve the ILO's objectives one of which is the respect of the principles of freedom of association, the Committee would urge the Government not to delay any longer proposed amendments to labour-related legislation which it trusts will be in line with the principles of freedom of association.
12. 270. The Committee notes with interest that of the 19 arrested unionists who remained in prison, 16 have been released either through parole or on completion of their sentences. It regrets that three unionists have not been released but notes the Government's statement that they may be pardoned. It insists that they be released immediately and requests the Government to inform it of developments in this regard. The Committee further notes with interest that Mr. Shin Sung-Chul, who lost his appeal against conviction, was released on parole on 24 December 1993.
13. 271. As regards the Committee's recommendation for reinstatement of the almost 1,500 Chunkyojo teachers who were dismissed, the Committee notes that the Government has taken steps to allow the dismissed teachers to apply for reinstatement in their posts. It deplores, however, that they could only apply for reinstatement after having given up their Chunkyojo membership. It considers that this government pressure is a serious violation of freedom of association principles. It urges the Government to ensure in future that no person is dismissed or discriminated against for exercising his right to form and join an organization of his own choosing and that teachers have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.
14. 272. As regards the recommendation to set up an independent judicial inquiry in respect of the death of the KTUC Vice-President, Mr. Park Chang-Soo, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates its earlier arguments to the effect that an autopsy which was carried out by an independent investigating authority cleared the suspicion of homicide and therefore the case is closed. The Committee regrets that the Government considers its request for re-examination of the case to be unacceptable and would remind the Government that when disorders have occurred involving loss of human life, the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry by the Government concerned is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible. It insists that the Government initiate such an independent inquiry and requests it to keep it informed of the results thereof.
15. 273. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on any action taken by it on the basis of investigations on alleged unfair labour practices engaged in by the Hyundai Construction and Engineering Company against KTUC or Korean Federation of Construction Trade Unions (KFCTU) members. It therefore requests the Government once again to take such action, with the firm intention that those responsible for any unfair labour practices that might have occurred should be punished, and to keep it informed in this respect.

Annex 1

1. Labour Dispute Adjustment Act (Emergency Adjustment Provisions)
2. Article 40 (Decision of Emergency Adjustment)
3. 1. The Minister of the Ministry of Labour may render a decision for an
4. emergency adjustment in case an act of dispute is related to the public
5. interest, or is of a large scale or of a specific character, and that, because
6. of such an act of dispute there exists the same danger which might impair the
7. national economy or endanger the daily life of the general public.
8. 2. The Minister of Labour shall hear the opinion of the Central Labour
9. Relations Commission in advance, if he intends to make a decision for an
10. emergency adjustment.
11. 3. In case the Minister of Labour has made a decision for an emergency
12. adjustment in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, he shall,
13. without delay, announce thereof with the reasons therefore and shall
14. simultaneously notify thereof to the Central Labour Relations Commission and
15. the parties concerned.
16. Article 41. (Suspension of an act of dispute at the time of emergency
17. adjustment)
18. The parties concerned shall immediately suspend any act of dispute when a
19. decision for an emergency adjustment under paragraph 3 of Article 40 is
20. announced and no act of dispute shall be commenced again unless 20 days have
21. elapsed from the date of announcement.
22. Article 43. (Central Labour Relations Commission's right to decide on
23. referring a dispute to arbitration)
24. 1. The Central Labour Relations Commission shall, if it considers that a
25. conciliation under the foregoing Article is not likely to be attained, decide
26. whether the case "dispute" be referred to an arbitration or not.
27. 2. A decision under the foregoing paragraph shall be made within ten days from
28. the date of receipt of the notice under paragraph 3 of Article 40.
29. Article 44. (Arbitration by the Central Labour Relations Commission)
30. The Central Labour Relations Commission shall, without delay, conduct an
31. arbitration when an arbitration by the Commission is requested by both or one
32. of the parties concerned or when the Commission has made a decision to refer a
33. dispute to an arbitration mentioned in the foregoing Article 43.
34. Article 38. (Final award of an arbitration)
35. 4. When an award of an arbitration or a decision for review has become final
36. in accordance with the provision of the foregoing paragraph, the parties
37. concerned shall accept it.
38. Article 39. (Effect of an award of an arbitration)
39. 1. The effect of an award or decision for a review rendered by a Labour
40. Relations Commission, irrespective of demand for a review or instituting an
41. administrative litigation against the Central Labour Relations Commission
42. pursuant to the provision of the foregoing Article, may not be suspended.
43. 2. The content of the award or decision for review which has become final in
44. accordance with the provisions of other foregoing Articles shall have the same
45. effect as that of collective agreement.
46. Article 46. (Penal provision)
47. In case of failure in suspension of an act of dispute or commission of an act
48. of dispute within 20 days, in violation of the provisions of Article 41, the
49. ring-leader of the act of violation shall be punished by penal servitude for
50. not longer than two years or a fine of not more than 1 million won.
51. Article 46-2 (Penal provision)
52. Any person who has violated paragraph 4 of Article 38 shall be subject to a
53. penalty of imprisonment not to exceed two years or a fine not to exceed 5
54. million won.
55. Annex 2
56. 1. Labour Disputes Adjustment Act
57. Article 12 (Restriction on acts of dispute)
58. 2. Labourers working for national or local government or defense industry
59. specially designated by the Special Law concerning Defense Industry shall be
60. prohibited from undertaking acts of labour disputes.
61. Article 30 (Commencement of arbitration)
62. A Labour Relations Commission shall arbitrate for any one of the following
63. disputes:
64. 3. In case of public enterprise, where there is a decision to refer to a
65. dispute to the arbitration of Labour Relations Commission upon the demand of
66. an administrative authority or ex officio decision of the Labour Relations
67. Commission.
68. Article 45-2 (Penal provisions)
69. Any person who has violated provisions or paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 12 or
70. article 12-2 shall be subject to a penalty of imprisonment not to exceed 5
71. years or a fine not to exceed 10 million won.
72. 2. Trade Union Act
73. Article 16 (Amendment of or supplementation of documents)
74. In case any provision of the union charter conflicts with labour-related law
75. and decree, the administrative authority may, with the approval of the Labour
76. Relations Commission, order the amendment or supplementation to the charter.
77. Article 21 (Modification of resolution or disposition)
78. In case the administrative authority deems resolution or disposition of a
79. trade union violates labour laws and decrees or charter of the trade union,
80. with the approval of the Labour Relations Commission, order the modification
81. thereof.
82. The trade union ordered to make a modification shall comply with such order
83. within 10 days following the receipt of such order.
84. Article 26 (Convocation of extraordinary general meeting)
85. 3. In case the representative of a trade union has intentionally dodged or
86. neglected the convocation of a conference prescribed in the foregoing
87. paragraph, the pertinent administrative authority may, with the approval of
88. the Labour Relations Commission, nominate a person who is to convoke the
89. conference in order to have a conference convened.
90. 4. In case there is no person who is to convene a general meeting or council
91. of delegates in the trade union, the administrative authority may nominate a
92. person who is to convene a conference when more than one-third of the union
93. members have requested the convocation of a meeting or the nomination of a
94. person who is to convene the meeting.
95. Article 30 (Submission of the documents)
96. When it is deemed necessary, the administrative authority may have the
97. accounting status or other necessary documents of the trade union submitted
98. for investigation.
99. Article 34, paragraph 3
100. The administrative authority may order change or nullification of a term in
101. collective agreement when the term is improper in violation of laws, after
102. obtaining resolution of the Labour Relations Commission.
103. Annex 3
104. Information from Government on persons whose release was
105. requested by the Committee but who are still held in prison
106. ------------------------------------------------------------------
107. No. Name Facts constituting Correctional End of
108. the offence institute sentence
109. term
110. ------------------------------------------------------------------
111. 1 Chung, When Dongyoung Chungjoo 1 Nov. 1995
112. Moo-Sung Aluminium Co.,
113. Ltd. was on strike,
114. these men committed
115. an act of confinement
116. and violence against
117. the president of the
118. company and other
119. persons
120. 2 Chung, and set fire to an Kongju 28 June 1995
121. Chang-Suk LPG storage facility,
122. thereby impeding
123. business and causing
124. damage to the amount
125. of 240 million Won.
126. They threw sulfuric
127. acid, nitric acid,
128. 3 Lee, hydrochloric acid, Taejon 15 Sep. 1994
129. Kwang-Soo a Molotov cocktail
130. and other obsjects
131. at riot policemen and
132. approximately 40 of
133. the policemen suffered
134. burns requiring one to
135. four weeks of treatment
136. ------------------------------------------------------------------
137. Information from Government on persons already released among all
138. whose release requested
139. ------------------------------------------------------------------
140. No. Name Release date
141. ------------------------------------------------------------------
142. 1 Hyun, Joo-Uk 22 Dec. 1993
143. Expiration of the sentence
144. 2 Chung, Joon-Won 1 Aug. 1993
145. Expiration of the sentence
146. 3 Yun, Jae-Kyung 1 Aug. 1993
147. Expiration of the sentence
148. 4 Chung, Sung-Young 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
149. 5 Ahn, Sang-Mok 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
150. 6 Mun, Sang-Ho 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
151. 7 Song, Doo-Sil 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
152. 8 Park, Won-Taek 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
153. 9 Yang, Sang-Kook 1 Aug. 1993
154. Expiration of the sentence
155. 10 Park, Jong-Ha 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
156. 11 Kim, Jin-Hoon 27 May 1993 Parole
157. 12 Pang, Bong-Soo 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
158. 13 Park, Hee-Sung 2 Sep. 1993
159. Expiration of the sentence
160. 14 Lee, Byung-Hyun 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
161. 15 Chung, Ha-Baek 24 Dec. 1993 Parole
162. 16 Park, Sun-Tae 20 Nov. 1993
163. Expiration of the sentence
164. ------------------------------------------------------------------