外資系企業の労働問題が政治課題になりました

This month — returning from parental leave, and the meaning of an “equivalent position”

In July 2026, personnel measures taken by the Korean entity of a Swedish furniture and household goods retailer were reported in the press and became the subject of controversy. According to the reports, the department of an executive-level employee on parental leave was consolidated and the employee’s existing grade ceased to exist; the company then proposed a placement at a lower grade, and when the employee declined, offered a severance payment equivalent to one year’s salary and suggested resignation. The company has stated that no disadvantageous treatment occurred.

The matter expanded into a political issue when the President shared the reporting and commented to the effect that foreign companies must not engage in anti-labor conduct in Korea, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor opened an investigation.

What the law requires

The Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act imposes two obligations on employers in relation to parental leave. The provisions read as follows.

• •Article 19(3) — An employer shall not dismiss an employee or otherwise treat the employee disadvantageously on the ground of parental leave, and shall not dismiss the employee during the period of parental leave (except where the business can no longer be continued).
• •Article 19(4) — After parental leave ends, the employer shall reinstate the employee to the same duties as before the leave, or to a position paying the same level of wages.

The penalties for violation are set out in the statute as well. Disadvantageous treatment on the ground of parental leave (violation of Article 19(3)) carries imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million; violation of the duty to reinstate to the original or an equivalent position (violation of Article 19(4)) carries a fine of up to KRW 5 million (Article 37).

Where practice most often diverges

The statute speaks of “the same duties as before the leave” or “a position paying the same level of wages.” Where a reorganization has eliminated the previous role, that obligation does not thereby disappear; what becomes contested is whether the alternative position the company offers is at “the same level.” Where the placement involves a lower grade, or reduced pay or authority, that assessment may not be straightforward.

Offering a severance payment and suggesting resignation during return-to-work discussions is also a frequent source of later dispute over whether the agreement genuinely reflected the employee’s own intent. Even where the form is a mutual agreement (resignation by recommendation), if the substance is assessed as having followed from the employer’s unilateral decision, whether it constitutes a dismissal can become the issue.

Why being a foreign-invested company enlarges the problem

The same reporting also referred to labor disputes at other foreign-invested companies. The Korean entity of a US warehouse-club retailer had previously had an unfair labor practice finding at a Regional Labor Relations Commission, and a Japanese glass materials manufacturer was cited as a case in which illegal dispatch was found by the Supreme Court. A Japanese optics company was also discussed in connection with labor conflict during a site closure.

The pattern this reveals is clear. Labor matters at a foreign-invested company tend not to end as that company’s own problem; they are taken up within a frame of “how foreign companies treat labor in Korea,” and therefore draw the attention of the press, politicians and regulators more readily. What headquarters would regard as an ordinary reorganization or exit negotiation may be weighed quite differently in Korea.

What HR should check now

• •Is it documented that the position awaiting an employee returning from parental leave or reduced working hours involves the same duties as before, or pays the same level of wages?
• •Where a reorganization has eliminated the previous role, are the criteria for selecting the alternative position, and the review that led to it, on record?
• •Are the proposals made in the return-to-work meeting, and the employee’s response, set down in writing? (Oral discussion alone is difficult to evidence in a later dispute.)
• •Is there any room for the exit discussion to be assessed as de facto coercion, and was the employee informed of a period to consider and of the possibility of withdrawal?
• •Is there a process for reviewing where headquarters’ HR policy conflicts with the statutory reinstatement duty and the prohibition on disadvantageous treatment, before it is applied in Korea?
• •Has the data been checked to confirm that a record of parental leave does not operate as a de facto disadvantage in performance review, promotion or placement?

In summary

This matter is still at the investigation stage, and the facts and their legal assessment will become clearer in time. What is certain from an HR perspective, however, is that the placement of an employee returning from parental leave is not a matter to be settled by discussion alone — it is directly required by statute. If a reorganization is planned and you have employees on leave, reviewing the adequacy of the alternative position ahead of their return is the way to reduce the risk of a dispute.