[Exclusive] Court Grants Injunction Against Renault Samsung Motors Union... "No Qualification as Negotiation Representative Union"

"Samirae Union Loses Status as Negotiation Representative Union Due to Collective Agreement Demands"
"Not a Case for Analogous Application of Article 14-10 Paragraph 2 of the Labor Union Act Enforcement Decree"

Renault Samsung Motors Union Strike Rally.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The court has accepted the injunction request filed by Renault Samsung Motors against the labor union currently engaged in industrial action.

The court ruled that the Renault Samsung Motors Union, which is currently leading the industrial action, has lost its status as the bargaining representative union and therefore lacks the qualification to lead the industrial action. Furthermore, the court judged that the purpose of the ongoing industrial action by the union is not justified.

In particular, the court noted that Article 14-10, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Union Act), cited by the bargaining representative union as the basis for the industrial action, is a provision that recognizes the maintenance of the bargaining representative union's status only in a limited sense concerning the "performance of an already concluded existing collective agreement," and thus cannot be analogously applied to this case.

According to the legal community on the 10th, the 2nd Civil Division of the Western Branch of the Busan District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-hyuk) partially granted the injunction request filed by Renault Samsung Motors Co., Ltd. against the Renault Samsung Motors Union, the union chairman, and the union sales branch chief the day before.

The court stated, "The current industrial action by the debtors cannot be considered to be led by the bargaining representative union, and it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of its purpose."

Although the court did not accept Renault Samsung Motors' request for indirect enforcement (a method to compel the debtor's compliance by warning of disadvantages such as damages if the court's decision is not followed) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the union would repeatedly engage in prohibited acts despite the court's decision, it accepted most of the company's requests, including prohibiting entry to the workplace, banning the installation of tents and banners, and prohibiting noise generation.

The court first ordered that until a new bargaining representative union is decided and a vote on the industrial action is passed, the union must not enter or allow its members or third parties to enter the Renault Samsung Motors Changwon Plant located on Nam-myeon-ro, Uichang-gu, Changwon-si, Gyeongnam, and the Renault Samsung Motors Incheon Plant located on Bupyeongbuk-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

It also prohibited occupying the customer parking lot or installing structures such as tents in major business facilities and auxiliary facilities within these plants, and banned noise exceeding 6 decibels (dB) during business hours, ordering the removal of already installed tent facilities.

The court also banned the installation of banners that insult Renault Samsung Motors or its executives or falsely advertise the withdrawal of the new car sales business. The litigation costs were ordered to be borne by the union.

Currently, Renault Samsung Motors has four multiple unions: the representative union Renault Samsung Motors Union with about 1,700 members, the Busan Yangsan Branch of the Korean Metal Workers' Union under the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the Saemirae Renault Samsung Motors Union (the third union), and the Renault Samsung Motors Sales and Service Union (the fourth union).

Last January, the company accepted voluntary retirement to reduce manpower, including in the maintenance business sector, and decided to suspend operations of the service departments at the Changwon and Incheon plants after April 30 this year due to manpower reduction.

The Renault Samsung Motors Union resolved to strike after a member vote in February this year and began industrial action on April 2, continuing the action by installing tents and banners at the plants and playing labor songs through amplifier facilities.

However, the Saemirae Renault Samsung Motors Union issued a statement at the end of May, the day it was decided as the bargaining representative union, demanding that the Renault Samsung Motors Union, which failed to conclude a collective agreement within one year, relinquish its vested rights and requested negotiations with the company.

Article 29-2, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Union Act (Single Negotiation Channel Procedure) states that "If there are two or more labor unions established or joined by workers at one business or workplace regardless of organizational form, the labor unions must designate a bargaining representative union to request negotiations."

Paragraph 8 of the same article states, "Necessary matters concerning the method of negotiation requests and participation by labor unions, the criteria for calculating the number of members for deciding the bargaining representative union, the single negotiation channel procedure, and prevention of increased negotiation costs shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree."

Article 14-10, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act (Duration of Status of Bargaining Representative Union) stipulates that "If the bargaining representative union decided under Article 29-2 of the Act fails to conclude a collective agreement within one year from the date of decision, any labor union may request negotiations with the employer."

Through the injunction request, the company argued that ▲ the Renault Samsung Motors Union failed to conclude a collective agreement within one year after being designated as the bargaining representative union on May 30 last year, and since the Saemirae Union and the Sales and Service Union requested negotiations with the company and initiated the single negotiation channel procedure, the Renault Samsung Motors Union lost its status as the bargaining representative union, making the industrial action illegal; ▲ the suspension of operations in the service departments of the two plants opposed by the union is a highly managerial decision by the management and cannot be subject to collective bargaining, so the industrial action based on this is not justified; ▲ the union's right to strike ended as the union ordered a halt to industrial action on June 2 last year; and ▲ each industrial action was excessive in means and methods.

On the other hand, the union argued that ▲ the initiation of the single negotiation channel procedure alone does not mean the loss of the previous bargaining representative union's status; ▲ the purpose of the industrial action should be evaluated as a whole, and the current industrial action is justified as its main purpose is to conclude a collective agreement and secure employment stability against plant closures; ▲ the union did not make a final decision to end industrial action on June 2 last year; and ▲ each industrial action was conducted within a reasonable scope.

The court found the company's interpretation of the current Labor Union Act and its Enforcement Decree to be correct.

The court stated, "Article 14-10, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act aims to practically guarantee the union's collective bargaining rights by allowing the resumption of the single negotiation channel procedure to designate a new bargaining representative union if the existing bargaining representative union fails to conclude a collective agreement with the employer within one year."

It continued, "Therefore, if a collective agreement is not concluded within one year under Article 14-10, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act, and a new union requests negotiations with the employer initiating the single negotiation channel procedure, it is reasonable to consider that the existing bargaining representative union loses its status as guaranteed by law."

Additionally, the court added, "In this case, the existing bargaining representative union that has lost its status cannot independently exercise collective bargaining rights nor lead industrial action."

Meanwhile, regarding Article 14-10, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act, which states that "If a new bargaining representative union is not decided even after the expiration of the status maintenance period of the bargaining representative union, the existing bargaining representative union maintains its status concerning the performance of the existing collective agreement until a new bargaining representative union is decided," the court pointed out, "This provision limits the maintenance of the bargaining representative union's status to the 'performance of an already concluded existing collective agreement,' so it cannot be analogously applied to cases like this where a collective agreement has not yet been concluded and the union is actively engaging in industrial action to establish rights and obligations."

The court also judged that it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the union's industrial action.

The court stated, "Changes in management organization due to management decisions such as the abolition of a business division cannot be subjects of collective bargaining, and the implementation of restructuring such as layoffs or department/organization consolidation is a highly managerial decision by the management and, in principle, cannot be subject to collective bargaining."

It added, "Unless there are special circumstances such as urgent managerial necessity or unreasonable intent, if the union engages in industrial action to oppose the implementation itself, even if the implementation inevitably involves changes in workers' status or working conditions, the industrial action cannot be recognized as having a legitimate purpose."

This aligns with existing Supreme Court precedents.

The court judged, "The debtors engaged in industrial action after the employer's decision to suspend operations in each service department of the business plants," and "Considering the content of the banners initiated by the debtors and the main locations of their industrial action being the plants subject to suspension, the main purpose of the debtors' industrial action is opposition to the employer's managerial decision to suspend operations in the service departments."

It added, "Based solely on the materials submitted by the debtors, it cannot be concluded that the employer decided to suspend operations with unreasonable intent or without urgent managerial necessity."

Jang Cheol-hee, attorney at the law firm B.I.L., representing Renault Samsung Motors in the injunction application, said, "In workplaces with multiple unions, if the existing representative union fails to conclude a collective agreement within one year from the date it was designated as the representative union, and another union requests negotiations under Article 14-10, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act, the single negotiation channel procedure is initiated, and the existing representative union loses its status. However, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14-10 maintain the status of the existing representative union concerning the performance of the collective agreement, so the union argued that it could engage in industrial action based on these provisions, making the interpretation of these provisions a key issue in this case."

He continued, "The court clearly rejected the union's argument by interpreting that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act cannot be analogously applied to allow industrial action based on a collective agreement after the initiation of the single negotiation channel procedure, concluding that the union lost the authority to engage in industrial action. This is likely the first ruling on this related issue," highlighting the significance of this decision.

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