韓国・米国・日本の労働法、何が同じで何が違うのか

When HR at the Korean entity of a foreign-invested company explains Korean labor law to headquarters, the fastest approach is to set it side by side with the law of headquarters’ own country, which headquarters already knows. You can correct headquarters’ assumptions only when you know what is different before what is the same.

This article compares the labor laws of Korea, the United States and Japan across seven topics. The provisions were checked against the official texts published by each government as of 9 October 2026 (Korea: National Law Information Center; United States: United States Code, 2024 edition; Japan: e-Gov Laws and Regulations).

1. Structure of the law — where things are set out

• •Korea: Statutes such as the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act set the same standards nationwide, with details set out in enforcement decrees and enforcement rules. Administrative interpretations by the Ministry of Employment and Labor and Supreme Court precedents serve as practical standards.
• •United States: Federal law sets minimum standards such as the minimum wage, overtime pay, labor unions and anti-discrimination, and leaves many matters, such as dismissal, to state law and state court precedent. For leave as well, federal law does little more than guarantee up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave in any 12-month period for childbirth, caregiving and similar reasons at employers with 50 or more employees (29 U.S.C. §2611, §2612); much of the rest is left to state law and company policy. The federal minimum wage is USD 7.25 per hour (29 U.S.C. §206), and many states set a higher rate by state law.
• •Japan: As in Korea, the Labor Standards Act, the Labor Contract Act and the Labor Union Act set the same standards nationwide. Some of the standards on dismissal began in case law and were later written into statute.

2. Dismissal — where the three countries differ most

• •Korea: An employer may not dismiss an employee without justifiable cause (Labor Standards Act, Article 23(1)). The grounds and timing of dismissal must be notified in writing for the dismissal to take effect (Article 27), and the employer must give 30 days’ advance notice or pay at least 30 days’ ordinary wages (Article 26). An employee who has been unfairly dismissed may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy within three months (Article 28). The restrictions on dismissal, written notice and the remedy application apply to workplaces with five or more employees on a regular basis, while advance notice of dismissal also applies to workplaces with four or fewer (Article 11; Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Appended Table 1).
• •United States: Federal law contains no provision that restricts dismissal in general. Many states take as their starting point the “at-will employment” principle—unless the contract provides otherwise, either the company or the employee may end the employment relationship at any time—and treat as exceptions cases that federal or state law prohibits, such as dismissal because of discrimination, retaliation or union activity. The scope of the exceptions differs from state to state. As an exception, Montana treats as wrongful the dismissal without good cause of an employee who has completed the probationary period (Mont. Code Ann. §39-2-904).
• •Japan: A dismissal that lacks objectively reasonable grounds and is not considered appropriate in light of socially accepted norms is treated as an abuse of right and is invalid (Labor Contract Act, Article 16). Advance notice of 30 days or payment of at least 30 days’ average wages is also required (Labor Standards Act, Article 20). Where a fixed-term employee whose contract has been renewed repeatedly, or who has reasonable grounds to expect renewal, applies for renewal and the company refuses, the same standard (objective reasonableness and social appropriateness) applies to the refusal (Labor Contract Act, Article 19).

3. Restructuring — notice or consultation?

• •Korea: To dismiss for managerial reasons, there must be an urgent managerial necessity, the employer must make every effort to avoid dismissal, and those to be dismissed must be selected on reasonable and fair criteria. The employer must also notify the employee representative at least 50 days before the intended dismissal date and consult in good faith (Labor Standards Act, Article 24). Dismissing more than a certain number of employees must be reported to the Ministry of Employment and Labor (paragraph (4) of the same Article).
• •United States: An employer with 100 or more employees must give 60 days’ written notice before a plant closing or mass layoff (WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. §2101, §2102). This, however, is an advance-notice obligation; it is not a provision that examines whether the reasons for dismissal are justified.
• •Japan: No statutory provision deals directly with economic dismissals. Courts have examined the necessity of reducing headcount, efforts to avoid dismissal, the reasonableness of the selection of employees and the appropriateness of the procedure to decide whether the dismissal is an abuse of right under Article 16 of the Labor Contract Act.

4. Working hours and overtime pay

• •Korea: The standard is 40 hours a week and 8 hours a day (Labor Standards Act, Article 50). If the parties agree, working hours may be extended by up to 12 hours a week (Article 53(1)). For extended and night work, at least 50% of ordinary wages must be added; for holiday work, 50% is added for up to 8 hours and 100% for hours beyond 8 (Article 56).
• •United States: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets no daily or weekly cap on working hours for adult employees, and requires pay of at least one and one-half times the regular rate for work over 40 hours a week (29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1)). Executive, administrative, professional and certain other employees who meet set requirements are excluded from this provision (§213(a)(1), so-called “exempt” employees).
• •Japan: The standard is 40 hours a week and 8 hours a day (Labor Standards Act, Article 32). To have employees work overtime, the employer must conclude a written agreement with a union organized by a majority of the workers or with a person representing a majority of the workers, and file it with the authorities (Article 36, the so-called “Article 36 Agreement”). The overtime limit is in principle 45 hours a month and 360 hours a year. Even in special circumstances, it must be within 720 hours a year; the months in which 45 hours may be exceeded are limited to six a year; and, including holiday work, it must be under 100 hours a month and average no more than 80 hours over any two to six months (paragraphs (4) to (6) of the same Article). The premium rates are 25% for overtime and 35% for holiday work; overtime exceeding 60 hours a month is 50%, and late-night work (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.) is 25% (Article 37 and the Cabinet Order under paragraph (1) of that Article).

5. Labor unions and collective bargaining

• •Korea: Where there are two or more unions in one business, in principle a bargaining representative union is determined and bargains with the employer (Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 29-2). Refusing to bargain without justifiable reason is an unfair labor practice (Article 81(1)3), and an application for remedy must be filed within three months (Article 82(2)). Under the amendment that took effect on 10 March 2026, a person who is in a position to substantially and specifically control or determine employees’ working conditions is regarded as an employer to that extent, even if not a party to the employment contract (Article 2, subparagraph 2).
• •United States: The representative chosen by a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit becomes the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in that unit (29 U.S.C. §159(a)). Supervisors are excluded from the definition of employee under this law (§152(3)). A charge of an unfair labor practice must be filed within six months of the conduct (§160(b)).
• •Japan: Refusing without justifiable reason to bargain collectively with the representatives of the workers the employer employs is an unfair labor practice (Labor Union Act, Article 7, item 2). The law does not provide a procedure for determining a bargaining representative such as Korea’s single bargaining channel or the US majority-based exclusive representation. An application for remedy against an unfair labor practice must be filed within one year of the conduct (Article 27(2)).

6. Workplace harassment and discrimination

• •Korea: The law prohibits the conduct itself: an employer or employee taking advantage of a superior position or relationship in the workplace to cause physical or mental suffering to another employee, or to worsen the working environment, beyond the appropriate scope of work (Labor Standards Act, Article 76-2).
• •United States: No federal law prohibits workplace harassment in general. Federal law prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), so-called Title VII), and harassment becomes an issue when it amounts to such discrimination. This law applies to employers with 15 or more employees (§2000e(b)), and a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) must in principle be filed within 180 days, which may be extended to 300 days where proceedings were first instituted with a state or local anti-discrimination agency (§2000e-5(e)(1)).
• •Japan: Rather than prohibiting the conduct directly, the law places a duty to take measures on employers. Employers must take the employment-management measures necessary—such as establishing a system for consultations—so that workers’ working environment is not harmed by conduct that is based on a superior relationship and exceeds what is necessary and appropriate for work (Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies, Article 31; from the version in force on 1 October 2026, the article number changed from the former Article 30-2).

7. Where disputes go

• •Korea: The Labor Relations Commission decides whether to grant remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, labor inspectors of the Ministry of Employment and Labor handle violations such as unpaid wages, and the courts stand behind them.
• •United States: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handles union-related cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handles discrimination cases, and the federal Department of Labor handles minimum wage and overtime pay. Other dismissal disputes are often litigated in state courts and elsewhere, depending on state law and contracts.
• •Japan: Individual dismissal disputes are centered on the courts, and within the courts there is a labor tribunal procedure in which a judge and labor experts hear the case together (Labor Tribunal Act, Article 1). Labor Relations Commissions handle remedies for unfair labor practices (Labor Union Act, Article 27), and Labor Standards Inspection Offices supervise violations of labor standards.

Summary

Set side by side, Korea is close to Japan on dismissal and harassment, and has some similarities to the United States in how a union bargaining representative is determined. Yet it is not the same as either. If headquarters’ policy was written on the premise of its own country’s law, the starting point for Korean HR is to point out first which parts change in Korea.

• Korea — Labor Standards Act (National Law Information Center, in Korean)
• Korea — Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (National Law Information Center, in Korean)
• US — Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §207 (govinfo)
• US — National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §159 (govinfo)
• US — WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. §2102 (govinfo)
• US — Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2612 (govinfo)
• US — Civil Rights Act, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 (govinfo)
• US — Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act, §39-2-904
• Japan — Labor Standards Act (e-Gov, in Japanese)
• Japan — Labor Contract Act (e-Gov, in Japanese)
• Japan — Labor Union Act (e-Gov, in Japanese)
• Japan — Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies (e-Gov, in Japanese)