Boryeong Iyagi Village Refutes Union’s Retaliation Claims as Distortion... Legal Action Over Illegal Collective Agreement, False Information

Facility States, "Collective Agreement Signed Without Authorization Is Fundamentally Invalid... Unpaid Wages in Compliance With Guidelines"
Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Claims by Labor Groups and Civil Society Organizations

Civil society organizations and labor groups held a press conference at Chungnam Provincial Government Office on the 6th, demanding the cancellation of the corporate license for Boryeong Story Village and normalization measures from the province. Photo by Lee Byeongryeol

As controversy grows over alleged retaliation against a whistleblower at Iyagi Village, a residential facility for people with severe disabilities in Boryeong, South Chungcheong Province, the facility has issued a strong rebuttal, stating that “the union’s claims distort the facts.” The facility asserts that the core issues are an illegally concluded collective agreement and the spread of false information.

On January 8, Iyagi Village released a statement responding to civil society organizations and labor groups, who had raised allegations of “systematic retaliation,” “unjust suspension,” and “unpaid wages.” The facility stated, “These matters stem from a collective agreement with clear procedural flaws and repeated violations of work regulations.”

Previously, civil society organizations and labor groups held a press conference at Chungnam Provincial Government Office on January 6, demanding the cancellation of the corporate license and normalization measures from the province.

In response, the corporation explained, “The collective agreement in question was concluded by the secretary-general during the facility director’s suspension, without delegation from the corporate CEO, and using the corporate seal without authorization. The agreement was not ratified by the board of directors, rendering it fundamentally invalid.”

The corporation also stated, “We cannot accept demands for time-off wage payments based on an agreement signed by an unauthorized person,” and added that they have initiated normalization procedures, including requesting an audit of the corporation.

Regarding the union’s claim that employees were required to submit written statements for refusing to pray, the facility countered, “This is clearly false information.”

The facility director stated, “The allegation that prayer was forced instead of emergency treatment for people with disabilities is untrue, and the related picketing and dissemination have seriously damaged the reputation of both the facility and individuals. We are considering legal action.”

On the controversy over unpaid wages, the facility explained, “We followed administrative guidelines from higher authorities, which prohibit the payment of paid wages for union activities using subsidies. This was carried out in compliance with legal guidelines, and neither the CEO nor the facility director is at fault.”

Regarding legal proceedings, the facility stated, “The claim that the facility director’s conviction and fine have been finalized is not true. We have requested a formal trial in opposition to the summary indictment, and the case is currently under judicial review.”

On the issue of suspension, the facility clarified, “This was a personnel measure unrelated to the whistleblowing.”

The corporation asserted, “The personnel review was conducted due to accumulated violations of work discipline, including noise protests in the dormitory, failure to follow instructions, actions negatively affecting residents’ emotional well-being, and unauthorized absences during the suspension period followed by retroactive time-off notifications.”