Incheon Court Bars Suspension of Key Processes, Ordering 20 Million Won Per Violation
Main entrance of Samsung Biologics
The court partially accepted an application for indirect compulsion filed by the management, stating that core processes must not be suspended during the strike by the Samsung Biologics labor union.
According to the legal community on May 22, Civil Division 21 of the Incheon District Court partially cited the application for indirect compulsion filed by Samsung Biologics against the Samsung Biologics Co-prosperity Branch of the Samsung Group Ultra-enterprise Labor Union.
The court stated, “The union must not instruct its members to suspend the final core processes or distribute related guidelines during the strike period.”
Furthermore, the court decided that in the event of a violation, the union must pay 20 million won (approx. $13,333) to the management per violation. Previously, the management had requested a payment of 100 million won per violation, but only a portion was accepted.
In addition, among the total nine processes identified by the company as necessary to prevent deterioration and spoilage of thawed cell lines, the processes the court prohibited from being stopped during the strike were: protein concentration and buffer exchange for purification of biopharmaceuticals, filling of drug substance solution (frozen storage), and preparation and supply of buffer solutions to maintain protein stability.
Previously, when the management filed an application for an injunction to prohibit industrial action, the court dismissed the application for indirect compulsion, considering that there was a low possibility of the union violating the decision while risking criminal punishment.
However, as conflicts between labor and management continued subsequently over matters such as the method of using annual leave and the obligation of overtime and holiday work, the court judged that there is a possibility of violating the injunction decision.
The court explained, “The collective bargaining dispute between labor and management has not ended, and there is a considerable difference of opinion over the interpretation of the injunction decision and the scope of permissible industrial action,” adding, “There is a probability that the union will violate the injunction decision in the future, so the requirements for indirect compulsion are met.”
It added, “We determined the amount of the compulsory performance money by comprehensively considering the damages to the management that could occur due to the violation of the injunction decision, as well as the union’s interests and income structure.”
Michael Herh
댓글
0