Hyundai Motor Union 'Work Obstruction Case'... Conclusion Today After 10 Years

The Longest Pending Case in Constitutional Court History... Linked to Judicial Scandal Allegations

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] A verdict on the unconstitutionality of the obstruction of business charges filed by non-regular workers' union officials at Hyundai Motor Company's Jeonju plant will be delivered after 10 years.

The Constitutional Court will hold a ruling session on the 26th for the constitutional complaint filed by Hyundai Motor non-regular workers' union official Mr. A and others, who argued that Article 314, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act violates the principles of legality and clarity in criminal law and the principle of proportionality, and infringes on workers' collective action rights.

Mr. A and others were indicted on charges of obstruction of business for refusing to work overtime (special work) three times after receiving notice of dismissal of non-regular workers in March 2010. They requested a constitutional review during the appellate trial, but after it was dismissed, they filed a constitutional complaint in February 2012.

At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that workers' strikes and other collective actions could be punished under the obstruction of business charges. Unless the strike met the requirements of lawful collective action, most strikes were judged to violate Article 314, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act, which stipulates obstruction of business.

This case has been pending at the Constitutional Court for 10 years, making it one of the court's longest pending cases. It is known that since 2016, the case has not even been reviewed by the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, Mr. A and others received a final guilty verdict from the Supreme Court.

Regarding this case, the Constitutional Court even received an opinion letter from the Court Administration Office, but the letter contained almost no content on whether overtime work constitutes obstruction of business by force, only stating that the Constitutional Court should not decide a limited unconstitutionality, which sparked controversy.

This case is also linked to the ‘judicial scandal’ allegations during the tenure of former Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae. The Court Administration Office was suspected of gathering internal information from the Constitutional Court through judges dispatched to the court around 2015, and there were allegations that discussions among Constitutional Court justices and research reports related to Mr. A’s case were leaked.

The prosecution investigating the judicial scandal allegations applied charges against former Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae and then Deputy Chief of the Court Administration Office Lim Jong-heon for reporting this case to the Blue House and attempting to pressure the Constitutional Court.