Gwangju Animal Shelter Union Deepens Conflict with Management: "No Operational Capability"

Announcement of Position on Bulletin Board Issues Including 'Disband the Union' After 2 Weeks

Allegations of Unprincipled Position Allowance Expenditures... 2nd and 3rd Posts Also Scheduled

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters, Reporter Yoon Jamin] Since mid-last month, posts expressing suspicion about the background of the establishment of the Gwangju Animal Shelter Workers' Cooperative have appeared on the shelter's free bulletin board. Despite being criticized, the union, which had remained unresponsive, has finally spoken out.

As a result, the conflict between the director of the Gwangju Animal Shelter and the union is expected to intensify further.

On the 6th, the union issued a statement on the shelter's free bulletin board, raising issues regarding the current problems with Director Jo Gyeong of the Gwangju Animal Shelter, including unprincipled expenditure of position allowances and suspicions of embezzlement of public funds. They also mentioned organized incitement posts made by those who requested attacks on the union and their followers.

The union stated, “No member wanted the honor of the Gwangju Animal Shelter to be further tarnished, nor did we want to disappoint or hurt the members and citizens who watch over the shelter with interest and affection,” adding, “If there are mistakes, we want to take appropriate responsibility and end this confusion solely by contributing to the development of the shelter with our experience and skills, and show the results.”

They continued, “We do not deny that there was conflict with the representative of Gachibodeum. However, the union’s expectations and hopes to resolve disputes through dialogue and serve faithfully as a complementary relationship to the shelter’s purpose and function were frustrated,” and added, “Paradoxically, some recent organized and violent incitement posts on the free bulletin board that hate the union have resulted in publicizing the hidden aspects of Gachibodeum and Director Jo Gyeong, so the union now intends to answer those questions.”

This statement contains fundamental problem recognition regarding the animal protection organization Gachibodeum and raises issues about Gachibodeum’s institutional management capabilities as the operating entity of the Gwangju Animal Shelter. It is reported that second and third statements may be considered if necessary.

First, they mentioned suspicions of embezzlement of public funds by the representative of Gachibodeum.

The Gwangju Animal Shelter imposes a penalty of 300,000 KRW when an adopted animal is returned, but the union claims this was disguised as voluntary donations and received into the corporate account.

They pointed out that there were 14 confirmed cases amounting to about 4 million KRW, which were also used to pay electricity, water bills, and rent at the corporation’s address.

Regarding the penalty for returns, the union explained that the regulation imposes a 300,000 KRW penalty when a return is unavoidable due to difficult circumstances, effectively leaving ‘abandonment’ as the only option.

They also claimed that unprincipled personnel appointments led to operating expenses being spent through position allowances.

The union stated, “Article 8 of the Animal Shelter Operation Regulations specifies that ‘the secretary performs administrative and accounting duties,’ but last year, an employee unrelated to administrative and accounting work was appointed as secretary, and a position allowance was newly established without Gwangju City’s approval, paying 300,000 KRW monthly,” adding, “Moreover, in addition to separate allowances, the secretary’s base salary was paid at 1,861,780 KRW, higher than other workers’ base salary of 1,745,150 KRW (minimum wage level).”

They continued, “The debts incurred during Gachibodeum’s operation of the shelter last year, including various public charges and purchase payments, amount to about 17 million KRW,” and said, “Although public charges and purchase payments are included in the shelter’s operating expenses paid by Gwangju City (about 61 million KRW per year in the budget execution plan), debts have been incurred for about 1.5 million KRW in electricity for two months, about 1.8 million KRW in water charges for two months, as well as costs for medicine purchases, feed purchases, and medical waste disposal.”

They also emphasized that during Gachibodeum’s entrusted operation of the shelter, employees’ severance pay has not been properly accrued, indicating serious operational difficulties, while labor costs have increased and feed purchase costs, the shelter’s core task, have decreased.

They said, “According to the business expense change plan submitted at the 2nd Gwangju Animal Shelter Operations Committee meeting held in July 2019, overtime allowances for the director and others increased from the originally planned annual budget of 4.8 million KRW to about 19 million KRW,” and “On the other hand, feed purchase costs for animals decreased by about 10 million KRW from the originally planned annual budget of about 36 million KRW to about 25 million KRW.”

They raised suspicions, stating, “The self-wage increase of Director Jo Gyeong, excessive overtime allowance expenditures, and the decrease in feed purchase costs for the animals coincidentally match perfectly.”

They also said, “We have not defended the accused regarding animal abuse and poor attendance such as tardiness, nor tried to evade responsibility,” and “We have never demanded a wage increase, but even if we had, that itself should not be subject to criticism.”

Furthermore, “The union proposed to Director Jo Gyeong, not as the shelter director but as the corporation’s representative, a vision for the shelter’s development and requested that he act as a mediator for conflict resolution,” and “Director Jo rejected this, and the union accepted it and sought new solutions.”

In response, Director Jo stated that there are some false facts and suggested resolving the matter legally first.

Director Jo said, “I made several proposals to resolve this amicably, but it is regrettable that it is ending up in a legal battle,” and it is known that he intends to hold legally accountable for false information based solely on reports from union employees.