The Samsung Biologics Mutual Benefit Labor Union (union) demanded collective bargaining with Samsung Electronics, its second-largest shareholder, citing the “Yellow Envelope Law” (the amended Trade Union and Adjustment of Labor-Management Relations Act). Industry analysts suggest that it will not be easy to prove that Samsung Electronics qualifies as a “substantive and specific employer” of Samsung Biologics workers.
Park Ji-soon, a labor law expert and professor at the School of Law at Korea University, stated on the 6th, “Under the Yellow Envelope Law, an employer is defined as one who can substantively and specifically control and determine working conditions.” She added, “Even if Samsung Electronics is involved in the overall compensation structure or investment strategy of Samsung Biologics within a broad framework, it is difficult to regard such strategic decision-making alone as constituting ‘specific’ control and determination.”
Professor Park further noted, “The union must present evidence regarding whether Samsung Electronics specifically decided on the personnel matters or compensation of individual Samsung Biologics workers before we can determine whether to accept their claim,” adding, “It is difficult to recognize employer status based solely on vague circumstances.”
Some view Samsung Biologics’ move to bring Samsung Electronics to the negotiating table itself as a “bargaining strategy.” This is because Samsung Electronics, which recently garnered national attention due to conflicts over operating profit, would inevitably feel burdened if it became entangled in labor-management issues again. An industry source said, “The union’s attempt to draw Samsung Electronics to the negotiating table could be a hand with little to lose and much to gain,” while adding, “However, the prevailing interpretation is that an independent company directly demanding bargaining with its second-largest shareholder is an excessive strategy.”
Since the Yellow Envelope Law took effect in March last year, disputes over “who is the employer” (employer status) have continued. Starting with Hanwha Ocean, various companies including Naver and Kakao are confused about how far to recognize the scope of parties to collective bargaining regarding the interpretation of the Yellow Envelope Law. As judgments on employer status for bargaining parties diverge, cases where management responds to unions’ demands to “bargain” by seeking “injunctions against strikes” in court are increasing.
Regarding this, Professor Park said, “The recent issue of conflicts between subordinate unions and parent companies at various firms was a fully anticipated result of the implementation of the Yellow Envelope Law,” adding, “The Yellow Envelope Law is the basis that allowed unions to devise such problem-raising or bargaining strategies.” She continued, “The law has effectively opened a path allowing unions to demand recognition as employers not only of their direct employers but also of any entity behind them,” pointing out, “The Yellow Envelope Law has opened up what could be called a ‘minefield’ in determining employer status.”
It is predicted that disputes over the legality of collective bargaining between the Samsung Biologics union and Samsung Electronics will extend to administrative lawsuits in court following labor commission proceedings. Professor Park stated, “Labor-management relations are sinking into a quagmire,” urging, “Detailed guidelines must be established premised on security legislation, and the ‘details’ of the Yellow Envelope Law need to be refined.”
in THEBIO
