Samsung Electronics Labor and Management Clash Over Interpretation of Essential Workforce Scope in Court Injunction
Samsung Electronics labor and management attending the 2nd post-mediation - Yeo Myung-koo, head of the DS (Semiconductor Division) People Team and the chief negotiator representing Samsung Electronics management (left photo), and Choi Seung-ho, head of the Samsung Electronics Branch of the Samsung Group Ultra-enterprise Labor Union (right photo), are respectively attending the 2nd post-mediation meeting held at the Central Labor Relations Commission in the Government Complex Sejong on May 18.
Although the court accepted a significant portion of Samsung Electronics’ application for an injunction related to the strike and ordered the maintenance of an essential workforce at the semiconductor plants, labor and management are putting forward conflicting interpretations over the scope of the essential workforce.
Even if a strike is launched, the worst-case scenario of a complete suspension of the semiconductor production lines has been avoided, but if only a minimum workforce is deployed as the union claims, production disruptions are expected to be inevitable.
The 31st Civil Division of the Suwon District Court largely cited the application for an injunction prohibiting illegal acts of dispute filed by Samsung Electronics on April 16 against two unions, the Samsung Electronics Branch of the Samsung Group Ultra-enterprise Labor Union and the National Samsung Electronics Union, on May 18.
The court stated in its written decision, “The debtors (the unions) must not suspend, abolish, or obstruct the safety protection facilities from being maintained and operated with the same level of workforce, operation time, operation scale, and duty of care as in normal times (weekdays or weekends and holidays) during the period of acts of dispute, nor shall they cause their affiliated union members to commit such acts.”
In particular, it ordered, “They must not obstruct works claimed by the creditor (Samsung Electronics) as security works, such as works to prevent damage to work facilities and works to prevent wafer deterioration, from being performed with the same level of workforce, operation time, operation scale, and duty of care as in normal times prior to the acts of dispute, nor shall they cause their affiliated union members to commit such acts.”
In other words, even in the event of a strike, the union side must maintain the deployment of the workforce to prevent facility damage and product deterioration for normal semiconductor production at a ‘normal’ level.
Assessments are emerging in the industry that the worst-case scenario of a complete suspension of production due to a strike has been avoided, as legal constraints have been placed on the union’s strike methods through this injunction decision.
In particular, the scale of damage was expected to exceed 100 trillion won ($66.67 billion) if production facilities or raw materials such as wafers were damaged, but the court has essentially put the brakes on the worst-case possibility.
The problem is how to define ‘an essential workforce at a normal level.’
While stating in the citation that safety protection facilities must be maintained and operated exactly as in normal times, the court specified that normal times ‘mean normal weekdays or normal weekends and holidays’.
Over this, the union and the management are clashing, arguing that ‘weekend workforce’ and ‘weekday workforce’ should be used as the standard, respectively.
Law Firm Majung, the union’s legal representative, stated in a position statement, “The management has argued that if essential tasks are performed based on the weekday workforce, 7,000 people will work in the semiconductor sector alone, which does not interfere with the exercise of the right to dispute,” and added, “However, as this decision enables the union’s claim of ‘weekend or holiday workforce’ deployment, fewer than 7,000 people will work (as the actual working personnel), so it does not actually cause any interference to the acts of dispute.”
This is an interpretation that since the court specified ‘weekends and holidays’ as well as weekdays in the workforce standards, it is not a violation of the law to go on strike while leaving only the weekend level of a smaller workforce at the plant.
In response, the management rebutted the union’s claim regarding the workforce standards through an internal notice, calling it “clearly misleading the court’s decision.”
Samsung Electronics emphasized, “It is clear that the court’s written decision means to maintain safety protection facilities and security works with a weekday-level workforce on weekdays and a weekend and holiday-level workforce on weekends and holidays during the period of dispute.”
In other words, the court specifying weekdays and weekends and holidays respectively means that the working personnel at the normal weekday level on weekdays and the working personnel at the normal weekend and holiday level on weekends and holidays fall within the scope of the essential workforce.
Based on this, the management also confirmed a policy to provide separate guidance to executives and employees in departments that require normal attendance.
Law Firm Jipyong, Samsung’s legal representative, also issued a position statement and pointed out, “In this case, the debtors (the unions) argued that ‘a minimum workforce based on weekends and holidays is sufficient,’ but the court explicitly rejected the debtors’ claim.”
In the industry, an interpretation is emerging that since the court distinguished and explained the cited and dismissed parts by item, the union taking only certain phrases from the cited part and conveying them as if the court partially rejected the management’s claim also has a high potential for distortion.
Jung Suk-yee
댓글
0