Central Labor Relations Commission, Courier Union's Negotiation Refusal CJ Logistics "Unfair Labor Practice"

Acknowledgment of Primary Contractor's User Responsibility... "Substantial Authority Exercised Over Working Conditions"
Labor Unions Welcome "Immediate Negotiations"... Management Expresses Concern Over Surge in Negotiation Requests

On September 23 last year, courier drivers are seen receiving an increased number of delivery packages through the automated sorting system at the CJ Logistics Jung-gu Branch Jongno Sub (SUB) Terminal in Gimpo, Gyeonggi Province, in preparation for the Chuseok peak season. (Image source=Yonhap News)

[Sejong=Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] The Central Labor Relations Commission ruled that CJ Logistics' refusal to engage in collective bargaining with delivery workers constitutes an unfair labor practice. This recognizes the responsibility of the primary delivery company as the employer of special employment workers (special types of employment, or "teukgo") who provide labor to subcontracted agencies.

According to labor circles, on the 2nd, the Central Labor Relations Commission judged that CJ Logistics' refusal to engage in collective bargaining in response to the unfair labor practice relief application filed by the National Delivery Workers' Union against CJ Logistics constitutes an unfair labor practice. Earlier, the delivery workers' union had requested collective bargaining with CJ Logistics in March last year, but after being refused, they filed a relief application with the Labor Commission, claiming it was an unfair labor practice.

Delivery companies like CJ Logistics transport parcels by signing consignment contracts with multiple agencies. Individual agencies enter into separate contracts with delivery workers to entrust transportation tasks. Since the primary delivery company does not have a direct contractual relationship with the delivery workers, CJ Logistics' position is that it is not their employer and has no obligation to respond to collective bargaining demands.

On the other hand, the delivery workers' union argued that CJ Logistics is the actual employer who can influence the working conditions of delivery workers and therefore must accept the collective bargaining demands. The union's collective bargaining agenda with CJ Logistics included basic working condition issues such as shortening the parcel acceptance time at sub-terminals where loading and unloading take place, applying a five-day workweek, and securing parking spaces within sub-terminals. Most agencies are small-scale businesses with limited capacity to improve working conditions, so the union pointed out the need to negotiate with the "real boss," the primary company.

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission initially ruled in November last year that CJ Logistics was not the employer of the delivery workers, but the Central Labor Relations Commission overturned this decision. Accepting the union's argument, it recognized CJ Logistics as the actual employer of the delivery workers.

In a press release issued the day before, the Central Labor Relations Commission stated, "In indirect employment relationships such as primary and subcontracted employment, the primary employer can be recognized as a party to collective bargaining to the extent that it exercises substantial authority over the labor conditions of subcontracted workers." In this case, some agenda items, such as the introduction of a five-day workweek, fall under the influence of CJ Logistics as the primary company, so CJ Logistics has the obligation to negotiate either solely or jointly with the agencies, according to the commission. The commission also explained that the Supreme Court has previously recognized the primary employer as the employer in unfair labor practice cases.

Before making this ruling, the Central Labor Relations Commission conducted on-site investigations into the operation of sub-terminals and the working conditions of delivery workers. The focus was on clarifying the factual circumstances on the ground as much as the formal contractual relationships. The commission also held multiple hearings with CJ Logistics, the agencies, and the delivery workers' union to examine the facts and legal issues.

The delivery workers' union responded to the commission's ruling by stating, "CJ Logistics has been rejecting the union's legitimate bargaining demands by using agencies as a front," and urged CJ Logistics to "immediately engage in sincere negotiations." The union evaluated this ruling as significant because it recognizes the primary employer as the actual employer, which is meaningful in a reality where subcontracted workers find it difficult to improve working conditions due to the inability to negotiate with the primary employer even after forming a union with difficulty.

The business community is opposing the ruling, arguing that it imposes excessive responsibility on companies. The Korea Employers Federation (KEF) stated in a commentary, "We cannot help but be greatly concerned about the negative repercussions on labor-management relations, such as a surge in similar collective bargaining demands." KEF said the ruling does not align with the Supreme Court's standards and contradicts past Central Labor Relations Commission rulings, and plans to actively respond through follow-up procedures such as administrative lawsuits.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.