外資系企業本社のガイドラインと韓国労働法

A US headquarters distributed the same Employee Handbook to all of its entities worldwide. The Korean entity was instructed simply to prepare a translation and collect signatures. The handbook includes provisions on unrestricted changes of duties, discretionary bonuses, immediate termination, unpaid standby, and the transfer of investigation materials to headquarters.

Common assumptions at headquarters

• •Global policies apply equally to all employees worldwide.
• •Localization is complete once there is a Korean translation and a signed acknowledgment of receipt.
• •If a headquarters policy conflicts with the Korean rules of employment, the headquarters policy prevails.
• •If the policy wording is abstract, local HR can operate it flexibly.

The first thing to check in a case like this is not the title of the document but how it is actually operated. Localization starts not with translation but with classifying the legal nature of the document. Even if the headquarters wording is clear, it must be reviewed for conflicts with mandatory provisions of Korean law, the rules of employment and individual employment contracts, and you must also check what managers have actually said and done on the ground.

HR policies at foreign-invested companies usually value consistency, controllability and fast decision-making at the headquarters level. Korean labor law, however, decides not by the name of a document but by looking at actual operation, the employer’s specific conduct, the fairness of the procedure and the disadvantage suffered by the employee as a whole. So rather than applying the global wording as it is, you must first identify how the measure in question would be characterized legally in Korea.

In practice, the following must be reviewed together: whether the global handbook functions as an employment contract, rules of employment or an HR practice; which provisions amount to an adverse change and what consent procedure applies; and provisions on dismissal, wages, working hours and personal data that conflict with mandatory law. Judging any one element in isolation easily distorts the conclusion. For example, even if the contract states that something is at the company’s discretion, actual payment practice or how managers operate may limit that discretion, and even a procedure lawfully approved at headquarters may leave separate employer obligations on the Korean entity.

Cases at foreign-invested companies also do not end with a conclusion under Korean law. Implementation becomes possible only when local HR explains to headquarters why the procedure is necessary, what options exist, and how the cost and timeline differ for each option. Legal opinions are therefore better structured around underlying facts, risk level, practical alternatives, a recommendation and a decision deadline, rather than a simple “possible / not possible.”

What to look at first when reviewing a draft

When reviewing a draft, you should first check how the company has actually operated, before the wording of statutes or case law. Look at the global policy text, the Korean contract templates, managers’ emails, payroll, attendance and evaluation records, and similar past cases together. If the records contradict one another, fixing only the latest document is not enough; operating practice and manager training must be changed at the same time.

For example, the headquarters HR team of OOO Korea instructed the Korea country manager to remove a particular employee from work immediately and block their system access. Korean HR, treating it as a headquarters decision, carried it out without separate review, but did not explain the reason or duration to the employee and did not decide how wages would be handled.

The first thing to check in a case like this is not the title of the document but how it is actually operated. A headquarters decision is business background, not automatic proof of justification under Korean law. Even if the headquarters wording is clear, it must be reviewed for conflicts with mandatory provisions of Korean law, the rules of employment and individual employment contracts, and you must also check what managers have actually said and done on the ground.

This is the essential starting point in advising foreign-invested companies. In other words, narrowing the gap between headquarters and the Korean entity comes first.