Blue House Chooses 'Implementation Guidelines' over 'Enforcement Decree' for Yellow Envelope Act Dispute Criteria: "Immediately Applicable in the Field"

"Enforcement decrees require over three months for legislative notice and regulatory review"
Speed takes priority
Enforcement decree postponed for now... Guidelines to be applied first and field monitored

The Blue House has decided to prepare “implementation guidelines” that can be immediately applied in the field, rather than an enforcement decree, in order to clarify the scope of labor disputes under the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, commonly referred to as the so-called “Yellow Envelope Act.” Since drafting an enforcement decree requires legislative notice and regulatory review, processes that take more than three months, the intention is to first reduce uncertainty in industrial worksites through immediate guidelines.

President Lee Jae-myung is speaking at the Cabinet meeting at the Blue House on August 25, 2026.

On August 28, the Blue House stated in a media briefing, “Although the effect in the field is similar, we seek to establish implementation guidelines that can be applied immediately at the workplace, unlike enforcement decrees that require a legislative notice, regulatory review, and take more than three months.” It further said, “After applying the guidelines, we will monitor changes at worksites and, if necessary, consider other measures.” In short, the government plans to first clarify the criteria for determining labor disputes through the guidelines, then observe whether such disputes decrease in practice between labor and management, and assess whether further institutional improvements, such as enforcement decrees, are needed.

The government’s choice of “implementation guidelines” over “enforcement decrees” appears to be primarily driven by the need for speed. The amended trade union law, which came into effect in March of this year, expanded the scope of labor disputes from traditional work conditions—such as wages, working hours, welfare, and layoffs—to also include “managerial decisions that affect working conditions.” However, because labor and management remain divided over how far such managerial decisions extend into the domain of working conditions, confusion has continued in practice.

In particular, the controversy over what constitutes a legitimate subject of dispute intensified as the Samsung Electronics pan-enterprise union declared its intention to make the establishment of a semiconductor factory in the Honam region a matter for labor-management negotiation, and as the so-called “N% performance bonus”—a demand for a certain percentage of operating profit as bonuses—emerged as an issue.

President Lee Jae-myung has repeatedly instructed that the scope of labor disputes be more clearly defined. At the Cabinet meeting on July 21, President Lee remarked, “It seems the scope of labor disputes is being expanded excessively,” and highlighted the need to suggest clear standards through enforcement decrees, enforcement rules, or Ministry of Labor guidelines.

Furthermore, at the Cabinet meeting on August 11, he went a step further and directly questioned the difference between a simple administrative interpretation and the legal force of an official regulation. When Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon explained that standards had been presented through administrative interpretation, President Lee pointed out, “An administrative interpretation is merely an opinion. Interpreting something as ‘not subject to industrial action’ in the Ministry of Labor’s opinion is different from explicitly stating it in a Ministerial Order.” He ordered officials to proactively consider including clear matters in the regulations.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.