CONTENTS
- 1. A Case in Which a Lockout Was Used to Counter a Labor Union's Strike
- 2. The Court's Determination on the Response to the Labor Union's Strike
- - Obstruction of Membership in the Metal Workers' Union and Suppression of Union Members Recognized as an Unfair Labor Practice
- - A Lockout Against a Lawful Strike Is an Unfair Labor Practice
- - Other Guilty Findings, Including Violation of the Labor Standards Act
- - An Unrepentant Attitude and the Absence of the Victims' Wish Not to Punish Worked Unfavorably in Sentencing
- 3. What Assistance Does Daeryun Provide Regarding Labor Union Unfair Labor Practices?
1. A Case in Which a Lockout Was Used to Counter a Labor Union's Strike
This is a case in which the representative director of a company that countered a labor union's strike with a lockout received a suspended sentence.
In 2022, the workers of J Company, an agricultural machinery parts manufacturer in the Daegu area, and of H Company, a machine parts manufacturer, joined the Korean Metal Workers' Union (hereinafter the Metal Workers' Union) and attempted collective bargaining, demanding legitimate improvements to working conditions, such as the introduction of a working-hour exemption system. When the company refused to accept these demands, the workers commenced industrial action.
The company, however, far from recognizing the union's activities, displayed an attitude of intervening in the very organization and operation of the labor union.
It was found that the representative director, A, committed unfair labor practices, attempting to influence the workers' decisions about joining the union by making statements such as, “If you join the Metal Workers' Union, you will be disciplined,” and, “If you do not join the Metal Workers' Union, a special bonus will be paid.”
Accordingly, on May 2, 2023, the Metal Workers' Union began a full work stoppage as it had announced.
Starting the next day, May 3, the company blockaded the factory gates and implemented a lockout, which it maintained for nearly three months, until August 21.
The problem was that, during that period, the company refused to accept the return of some union members even after they withdrew from the strike and expressed their intention to return to work.
In addition, although the Daegu Western Branch Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor sent an official letter recommending that the lockout be lifted, the company disregarded it and continued the lockout on the ground that “there was a risk that the industrial action would continue.”
In the end, the representative directors A and B were indicted on a total of five charges: violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, an unlawful lockout, violation of the Labor Standards Act, embezzlement and breach of trust, and unpaid wages.
2. The Court's Determination on the Response to the Labor Union's Strike
The court's determination on the response to the labor union's strike was as follows.
The court sentenced A, the representative director of J Company, who had been indicted on five charges including an unlawful lockout and unfair labor practices, to one year and six months' imprisonment with a three-year suspension of execution; B, A's son and the representative of H Company, to ten months' imprisonment with a two-year suspension of execution; and the corporation to a fine of one million won.
This judgment is a case in which the court confirmed that the employer's act of retaliating against the labor union's lawful strike with a lockout constituted a clear unfair labor practice.
Obstruction of Membership in the Metal Workers' Union and Suppression of Union Members Recognized as an Unfair Labor Practice
The court first determined that, in August 2022, when the workers of J Company showed signs of joining the Korean Metal Workers' Union (the Metal Workers' Union), the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by imposing unjust disciplinary measures on two key union officers and by coaxing and threatening all union members to withdraw.
In particular, the employer infringed the workers' freedom to organize and operate a union through statements such as, “If you join the Metal Workers' Union, you will be disciplined,” and, “If you do not join, a special bonus will be paid.” The court found that this fell within the employer's unfair labor practices specified in Article 81, items 4 and 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
Item 4: An act of dominating or interfering with workers' organization or operation of a labor union, and an act of paying wages in excess of the working-hour exemption limit or of subsidizing the operating expenses of a labor union
Item 5: An act of dismissing a worker or otherwise disadvantaging a worker on the ground that the worker has participated in lawful collective action, or on the ground that the worker has reported to the Labor Relations Commission that the employer has violated the provisions of this Article, has given testimony thereon, or has submitted evidence to any other administrative agency
The court also determined that the employer's acts could not be regarded as a mere expression of opinion.
It found that singling out union members, threatening disciplinary action, and coaxing members to withdraw were acts of domination and interference intended to exert a substantial influence on the workers' decision-making and exceeded the legal limits.
A Lockout Against a Lawful Strike Is an Unfair Labor Practice
The union commenced a full strike on May 2, 2023, and the next day the company immediately blockaded the factory gates and carried out a lockout.
The lockout was thereafter maintained for about 109 days.
The court also pointed out the clear unlawfulness of this lockout measure.
This was because, even though the union members had withdrawn from the strike and clearly expressed their intention to return to work, and the branch office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor had recommended lifting the lockout, the company continued the lockout solely on the arbitrary ground that “there was a risk that the industrial action would continue.”
The court held that the labor union's strike was a lawful industrial action with no procedural defect, and that the company's act of disparaging it as an unlawful strike and aggressively continuing the lockout constituted an unfair labor practice aimed at interfering with labor union activities.
The court further made clear that, from the point at which the lockout lost its legitimacy, the lockout constituted a suspension of work attributable to the employer, so that shutdown allowances had to be paid to the union members for that period.
This part clearly established that an employer's unlawful conduct under labor relations law also has a direct effect on working conditions.
Other Guilty Findings, Including Violation of the Labor Standards Act
The court also recognized the employer's liability in the following respects.
It found that compelling non-union workers to work in excess of 52 hours per week and repeatedly requiring overtime and special work violated the Labor Standards Act, and it also found the charges of unpaid wages and of embezzlement and breach of trust guilty.
This confirmed that the employer had, on the whole, continued structural legal violations that disregarded workers' rights, and it served as the decisive basis for the imposition of imprisonment.
An Unrepentant Attitude and the Absence of the Victims' Wish Not to Punish Worked Unfavorably in Sentencing
In its judgment, the court presented as an unfavorable sentencing factor the point that “the defendant shows no sign of genuine reflection on his conduct and, in particular, has not received forgiveness from the workers, who are the victims.”
The court, however, in choosing a suspended sentence rather than an actual custodial sentence, took into account the defendant's age and disposition, the size and circumstances of the company, and the social impact of the case.
On this point, the Metal Workers' Union gave the judgment significance, calling it “a judgment that sounded an alarm against the employer's organized union-busting crimes,” but it also expressed regret that “it is unfortunate that an actual custodial sentence was not imposed.”
3. What Assistance Does Daeryun Provide Regarding Labor Union Unfair Labor Practices?
A labor union conducts negotiations with the employer over working conditions such as wages, working hours, and welfare benefits, and serves to clearly convey its demands through industrial action such as strikes and demonstrations.
In this process, a labor union may be protected, in accordance with the law, in its right to organize, its right to collective bargaining, and its right to collective action.
An employer may not interfere with or discriminate against the organization and activities of a labor union, and may not discriminate against or dismiss workers.
The protection of labor unions serves an important role not only in guaranteeing workers' fundamental rights but also in building democratic labor-management relations and maintaining social equity.
This case clearly shows that an employer's manner of responding to a union may lead to criminal punishment where it violates the law.
In particular, given that the freedom to establish and operate a labor union is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and a central pillar of labor relations, the judiciary's assessment of unfair labor practices has been growing increasingly strict.
Daeryun Law Firm LLP provides systematic legal support through one-team cooperation between its attorneys experienced in labor matters and the labor affairs consultants belonging to the firm.
▶Diagnosis of Employer-Side Risks and Preventive Advisory
In labor-management relations, what matters most is preventive legal response at the stage before an issue arises.
By clearly advising a company's labor affairs personnel and management on the points to be mindful of when responding to a labor union, on legitimate bargaining methods, and on the requirements for a lockout, among other practical guidance, the firm supports them in minimizing the risk of unfair labor practices.
▶Response to Criminal Proceedings and Defense
An unfair labor practice is a serious matter that may lead to criminal punishment.
Drawing on extensive experience in pleading actual criminal cases related to labor unions, Daeryun establishes an active defense strategy through analysis of the facts, securing of evidence, and assertion of grounds precluding unlawfulness.
In particular, it presents a concrete direction of response centered on issues such as the legitimacy of the lockout, the scope of the employer's authority, and whether the union members expressed an intention to return to work.
▶Post-Dispute Restoration of Labor-Management Relations and Recurrence-Prevention Consulting
Follow-up measures after criminal and administrative dispositions are also important.
Through responding to Labor Office investigations, improving a company's internal labor-management systems, and establishing lawful labor-management cooperation frameworks, Daeryun provides ongoing advisory and consulting so that a long-term dispute-prevention system can be built.
If you are concerned about a dispute related to a labor union or a criminal risk arising from an unfair labor practice, you are welcome to respond prudently through a thorough legal review together with the attorneys experienced in labor matters at Daeryun Law Firm LLP.
