"Collective Bargaining Rights of Metal Workers' Union Not Guaranteed
During 2011-2020 Period of Counter-Union Activity"
[Supreme Court Ruling]
The Supreme Court has issued a final ruling that Samsung C&T must fulfill the collective bargaining obligations it failed to carry out with the Samsung Branch of the Gyeonggi Chapter of the Korean Metal Workers' Union under the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (hereinafter "Samsung Union") from 2011 to 2020. The ruling states that the establishment of the "Everland Union," which Samsung C&T promoted as a counter-union, is invalid. Therefore, Samsung C&T must faithfully respond to the collective bargaining requests from the Samsung Union that it ignored during the period when the Everland Union was active.
The Civil Division 1 of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Seo Kyunhwan) on July 3 confirmed the appellate court's decision in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial (2023Da251718) filed by the Korean Metal Workers' Union (represented by law firm Yeoneun) against Samsung C&T, ordering, "The defendant must faithfully engage in collective bargaining with the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's request for collective bargaining."
[Facts]
In July 2011, employees of Samsung C&T established the "Samsung Union" and joined the Korean Metal Workers' Union under the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. Since August of the same year, the Samsung Union sent official documents to management every year requesting collective bargaining, but Samsung C&T did not respond. Instead, Samsung C&T conducted collective bargaining and signed wage agreements for nine years until 2020 with the Everland Union, which had been established in June 2011, one month earlier than the Samsung Union.
In March 2019, the Metal Workers' Union filed a lawsuit to invalidate the establishment of the Everland Union and won, with the ruling finalized in June 2022. The court at the time stated, "The Everland Union was established as a result of unfair labor practices by the employer, who sought to control its organization and operation. Therefore, it does not meet the substantive requirements stipulated by the Trade Union Act, and its establishment is invalid." The court cited as grounds for this decision that "the union was established entirely under the employer's planning and leadership to interfere with the activities of any spontaneously formed union that might arise in the future in order to maintain a no-union policy, and that the employer selected the first union president and members through its own vetting process."
In April 2020, the Metal Workers' Union also filed a lawsuit against Samsung C&T demanding that it "engage in collective bargaining." However, after Samsung C&T responded to collective bargaining in 2021 and concluded a collective agreement and wage agreement in April 2022, the union amended its claim to demand that collective bargaining be implemented for "matters related to collective agreements and wage agreements prior to 2020" as well.
[Lower Court Rulings]
In the first trial, Samsung C&T prevailed. The first-instance court ruled, "Some of the union's bargaining demands cannot be retroactively enforced even if a new collective agreement is reached," and "The wage-related demands amount to a request to retroactively alter past legal relationships, which cannot be permitted in the absence of a legal basis."
However, the appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling and ruled in favor of the Metal Workers' Union, stating, "Samsung C&T has a duty to faithfully respond to bargaining requests." The appellate court explained, "The Everland Union was a counter-union established as a result of unfair labor practices by the employer to interfere with the establishment and control the organization or operation of the Samsung Union, and did not meet the substantive requirements stipulated by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act. The Samsung Union is the only union at the Samsung C&T workplace that meets the legal requirements under the Trade Union Act, so it has the right to demand collective bargaining from Samsung C&T."
The court further stated, "It is also possible for a union to conclude collective bargaining agreements with the employer that retroactively agree to or approve standards for working conditions such as wages or working hours. However, the effect of such agreements will only apply to employees who are still employed after the collective agreement is implemented, and will not apply to employees who retired before the agreement was concluded." The court added, "The bargaining issues in this case constitute mandatory bargaining subjects, and since the Samsung Union was the only union eligible to request collective bargaining during the relevant period (2011-2020), it is difficult to conclude that the bargaining issues sought by the Samsung Union are excluded from mandatory bargaining subjects or that there is no practical benefit to seeking bargaining simply because they concern past employment relationships."
[Supreme Court Ruling]
The Supreme Court ruled that Samsung C&T must faithfully engage in collective bargaining with the Metal Workers' Union regarding matters from 2011 to 2020.
The court stated, "It is inappropriate for the lower court to have found that the Samsung Union could negotiate over past working conditions regardless of the validity of the existing collective agreements." However, the court also clarified, "Since the Everland Union does not have the status of a union entitled to enjoy the three basic labor rights, including the right to collective bargaining, the collective agreements and wage agreements concluded from 2011 to 2020 have no legal effect under the Trade Union Act."
The court further held, "There are special circumstances indicating that the Samsung Union, as the only union in the workplace entitled to exercise the right to collective bargaining, lawfully requested collective bargaining but was not guaranteed that right. Therefore, the appellate court's conclusion that Samsung C&T is obligated to engage in collective bargaining on the matters in this case is justified."
Hong Yoonji, Law Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
