CONTENTS
- 1. The Conflict That Began With a Labor Union Accusation
- - How the Alleged Violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Arose
- 2. Applicable Provisions and Issues Under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
- 3. Strategy for Responding to the Alleged Violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
- - Demonstrating the Justification for Restructuring the Organization's Operations and the Business Necessity
- - Organizing the Facts to Rebut the Unfair Labor Practice Claim
- - Proving the Absence of Any Intent by the Employer to Intervene
- 4. Outcome of the Labor Union Accusation Case: Concluded as “No Suspicion of Crime”
- - Labor Union Disputes: Why You Should Seek Assistance
1. The Conflict That Began With a Labor Union Accusation
The client who came to Daeryun on a violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is the representative of a mid-sized company, and this is a case in which, although accused by a trade union, he received a disposition of ‘no suspicion of crime’ with the assistance of a Daeryun corporate attorney.
How the Alleged Violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Arose
The client, as the representative of a mid-sized manufacturing company, sought to improve the overall operational system by reorganizing internal systems and work processes.
This was a measure taken for the purpose of enhancing organizational efficiency and securing fairness among members.
However, some union members raised the issue that part of the reorganization plan disadvantaged labor union activities, and the matter developed into a legal dispute as they filed an accusation with the labor office.
The client was accused by the labor union of a violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and was facing an investigation.
To respond to this, the client came to Daeryun's corporate attorney, who has handled numerous labor-related cases, and requested assistance.
2. Applicable Provisions and Issues Under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
Article 81 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act defines unfavorable treatment of legitimate union activities, refusal of collective bargaining, and interference with a union, among others, as unfair labor practices.
▶ Types of Unfair Labor Practice under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
2. Making it a condition of employment that the worker not join a union or withdraw from one, or that the worker become a member of a particular union
3. Refusing or neglecting, without justifiable reason, to conclude a collective agreement or to engage in other collective bargaining
4. Controlling or interfering with the organization or operation of a union, and paying wages in excess of the time-off limit or supporting the operating expenses of a union
If an unfair labor practice such as the above is found, it is punishable under Article 90 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
▶ Level of Punishment
Article 90 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Penal Provisions) | Imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of up to 20 million won |
3. Strategy for Responding to the Alleged Violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
The principal issues contested in this case were as follows.
▶ Issues in the Case
▷ Whether the employer side had the intent to suppress union activities
In response, the corporate attorney focused on proving that the internal measures taken in the course of organizational operation did not constitute disadvantage or discrimination against particular union members.
In addition, the attorney clearly demonstrated, through circumstantial materials, that the employer side had no intent whatsoever to restrict or interfere with the labor union's activities.
Demonstrating the Justification for Restructuring the Organization's Operations and the Business Necessity
The corporate attorney focused on proving that the reorganization of the organization’s operating standards was a measure based on a reasonable management judgment.
The attorney explained in concrete terms, through internal planning documents, in-house explanatory materials, and the like, that the purpose of the reorganization lay in work efficiency and in streamlining work processes.
The attorney also proved that the scope of application covered all employees uniformly rather than specific union members, thereby emphasizing that there was no discriminatory intent.
Through this, the attorney objectively established that the reorganization measure was not a means to suppress union members’ activities.
Organizing the Facts to Rebut the Unfair Labor Practice Claim
To emphasize that the client's measure did not constitute disadvantageous treatment of a union member, the records of personnel actions and operational details before and after the incident were closely analyzed.
In particular, it was proven with figures and examples that the personnel transfer or job adjustment had been planned independently of union activities, and that the same measure was also applied to non-union members under the same conditions.
The corporate attorney persuasively argued that there was no intent of control or intervention by the employer, by showing that a consistent standard had been applied regardless of union membership.
Through a rebuttal strategy centered on the facts, the core element of the unfair labor practice was directly denied.
Proving the Absence of Any Intent by the Employer to Intervene
The corporate attorney noted the company's history of consistently respecting the existence of the labor union and maintaining a cooperative relationship.
By presenting numerous circumstantial materials, such as past instances of the company accepting the union's requests and records of regular labor-management communication, the attorney emphasized that the decision-making in organizational operations was an administrative procedure separate from union activities.
In addition, the attorney demonstrated with supporting materials that there were no circumstances indicating an attempt to restrict or interfere with union activities in the course of pursuing the reorganization.
4. Outcome of the Labor Union Accusation Case: Concluded as “No Suspicion of Crime”
The investigative agency recognized that the organizational restructuring process was a measure carried out in terms of business necessity and administrative reorganization.
It also determined that the relevant matter was not intended to restrict labor union activities or to impose a disadvantage, and that it did not violate the provisions of the collective agreement.
Accordingly, the charge of violating the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act was not recognized, and a disposition of ‘no suspicion of crime’ was ultimately rendered.
Labor Union Disputes: Why You Should Seek Assistance
Internal conflicts that inevitably arise in the course of organizational restructuring or policy changes can escalate into a violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
Even if a company did not intend it, this is a sensitive area in which, if union members perceive a disadvantage, the matter can lead to a criminal complaint.
For this reason, the assistance of a legal professional who can accurately diagnose the nature of the case from the outset and present clear reasoning for the response is needed.
Daeryun Law Firm has a team-based response system in place, in which corporate attorneys collaborate with experts in fields such as labor and tax matters according to the case.
It also provides tailored advisory services even after a case concludes, offering practical solutions for dispute prevention, prompt decision-making, and internal conflict management.
If a dispute with a labor union arises, please request assistance through 🔗legal consultation booking.
Watch related video content
for this case study.
Corporate practice response plan according to changes in ordinary wage precedent | Attorney Kim Jeong-beom
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
