Notices

File photo. Photo by Yoon Sung-hee

Seoul bus drivers, who went on strike for two days in January, are once again facing the possibility of putting down their steering wheels. The deadlock in collective bargaining is being attributed to the employers’ refusal to accept the contractual working hours already confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling. The workers have announced a strike for September 16.

The Seoul Bus Workers’ Union said on September 8 that the first mediation meeting at the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission would be held on September 9. As an agreement is unlikely to be reached at the first meeting, the stalemate is expected to continue through the vote on industrial action scheduled for September 11 and the second mediation meeting on September 15. Early next week is therefore expected to be a critical turning point.

According to the union, recent negotiations between the union and the Seoul Bus Transport Business Association broke down after the employers demanded a wage freeze, the abolition of bonuses and holiday allowances, and the retroactive application of a 209-hour monthly basis for calculating ordinary wages.

The central issue is the employers’ demand to apply 209 hours as the basis for calculating ordinary wages. The same issue?how many monthly hours should be used in calculating ordinary wages?was also at the heart of the Seoul bus strike in January. In effect, the same dispute has resurfaced.

A final court ruling has already been issued in the Dong-A Transportation case. The case involved workers at Dong-A Transportation who sought recalculation and payment of ordinary wages for the period from June 2012 through June 2025. The Seoul High Court determined that the contractual working hours were 176 hours per month.

The reason was relatively straightforward. Based on the wage agreements between labor and management and the company’s actual wage calculation tables, the court confirmed that Dong-A Transportation had calculated monthly base wages by multiplying eight contractual working hours per day by 22 contractual working days, resulting in 176 hours per month. The wage agreement also separately distinguished base wages from weekly holiday allowances.

Despite these facts, the employer argued that the contractual working hours should be 209 hours. Increasing the number of contractual working hours lowers the hourly ordinary wage, which is advantageous to the employer.

The Seoul High Court, however, rejected this argument. On April 30, the Supreme Court remanded the portions of the case concerning overtime and night-work allowances, but dismissed the employer’s appeal concerning the calculation of the ordinary hourly wage, holding that the lower court had not misunderstood the relevant legal principles.

A remand ruling by the Supreme Court is binding on the lower court, meaning that the Seoul High Court may not reconsider the issue already decided by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the employer is reportedly continuing to argue in the remand proceedings that the applicable monthly working hours should be either 209 or even 230 hours.

The union expressed strong frustration, stating, “The employers said they would finalize the unpaid wages in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, yet despite the final ruling confirming 176 contractual working hours, they are once again insisting on 209 or 230 hours.”

The union added that the employers are now claiming that they will follow the standard established in another company’s first-instance lawsuit once that case also becomes final. The union argues that this amounts to breaking their previous promise.

The union is stepping up pressure on the employers. On September 3, it petitioned the Ministry of Employment and Labor to conduct special labor inspections into alleged legal violations at each workplace. It has also decided to pursue claims against the employers not only for the principal amount of unpaid wages and statutory interest for delayed payment, but also for damages of up to three times the unpaid amount.

During the Seoul bus union strike in January, 7,400 buses operating on 394 routes run by 64 bus companies were taken out of service.

By Lee Jae Published September 9, 2026, 6:30 a.m. jael@labortoday.co.kr

Maeil Labor News