Constitutional Court Rules Hyundai Motor Union's 'Obstruction of Business Case' Constitutional... Decision After 10 Years

Constitutional Opinion: "Possible Restriction on Collective Action Rights Due to Impact on Economic Freedom"
Unconstitutional Opinion: "Risk of Eroding Collective Action Rights by Undermining Workers' Equal Bargaining Power"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court (center) and other justices entered and took their seats in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, where the constitutional complaint and unconstitutionality review were held on the afternoon of the 26th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled, after 10 years, that punishing Hyundai Motor Company's Jeonju plant irregular workers' union officials for refusing overtime work following layoff notices as 'obstruction of business' does not violate the Constitution.

On the 26th, the Constitutional Court decided by a 4 (constitutional) to 5 (unconstitutional) vote that Article 314, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act, specifically the part stating "a person who obstructs another's business by force," is constitutional in the constitutional complaint filed by Hyundai Motor irregular workers' union official Mr. A and others. Although five justices held an unconstitutional opinion, the number did not reach the required six or more for an unconstitutional ruling, resulting in a constitutional decision.

Mr. A and others were indicted on charges of obstruction of business for refusing holiday work (overtime) three times after receiving layoff notices in March 2010. After their request for a constitutional review was dismissed in the appellate court, they filed a constitutional complaint in February 2012. They argued that the provision violated the principle of clarity under the principle of legality, the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, and infringed on workers' collective action rights.

Regarding the principle of clarity under the principle of legality, the Constitutional Court stated, "Although there may be doubts about whether a specific act meets the legal elements in concrete cases, this is inevitable given the generality and abstractness of criminal law norms, and such circumstances alone do not render the criminal law norms unclear."

On whether the provision violates the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, the court ruled, "Even if the penalty under the provision subject to review is heavier than most penalties under the Labor Union Act, this is because the protected legal interests and the nature of the crime differ, and different factors must be considered when setting statutory penalties. Considering that the provision does not limit the lower bound of the statutory penalty, it cannot be seen as violating the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment."

However, opinions were divided among the justices regarding whether the provision infringes on workers' collective action rights. Justices Lee Sun-ae, Lee Eun-ae, Lee Jong-seok, and Lee Young-jin stated, "The right to collective action involves elements of force as a form of collective power, so it is difficult to conclude that criminal or civil liability is automatically exempted simply because it is an exercise of collective action rights. Restrictions on certain exercises of collective action rights that significantly infringe on the employer's property rights, freedom of occupation, freedom of economic activity, and seriously affect transaction order or the national economy are possible."

They further stated, "The provision subject to review criminalizes only collective refusal to provide labor that occurs suddenly at an unpredictable time for the employer, causing serious disruption or significant damage to the employer's business operations, thereby suppressing or confusing the employer's free will to continue business. Therefore, it cannot be considered an infringement on collective action rights."

On the other hand, Justices Yoo Nam-seok, Lee Seok-tae, Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyung-bae, and Lee Mi-sun pointed out, "Criminalizing simple strikes effectively forces workers' obligation to provide labor under the threat of punishment and undermines the workers' equal bargaining power in labor relations, risking the nullification of constitutional guarantees of collective action rights," expressing partial opinions of unconstitutionality.

This case was pending at the Constitutional Court for 10 years and was known as one of the court's longest pending cases. It is reported that since 2016, the case was not even heard by the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, Mr. A and others received a final guilty verdict from the Supreme Court.

At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that workers' strikes and other dispute actions could be punished as obstruction of business. Unless the strike met the requirements of lawful dispute action, most strikes were judged to violate Article 314, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act, which stipulates obstruction of business.

Regarding this case, the Constitutional Court even received an opinion letter from the Court Administration Office, but the letter contained almost no content on whether overtime work refusal constitutes obstruction of business by force, only stating that the Constitutional Court should not decide a limited unconstitutionality, which sparked controversy.

This case is also linked to the 'judicial scandal' allegations during former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae's tenure. The Court Administration Office was suspected of gathering internal information from the Constitutional Court through dispatched judges around 2015, and allegations arose that they leaked discussions among Constitutional Court justices and research reports related to Mr. A's case.

The prosecution investigating the judicial scandal applied charges against former Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae and then Court Administration Office Deputy Chief Im Jong-heon for reporting this case to the Blue House and attempting to pressure the Constitutional Court.

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