Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Avoided Catastrophe... Why Couldn't They Reach a Settlement in the 'Compensation Lawsuit'?

Tentative Agreement Reached Between Daewoo Shipbuilding Subcontractor Labor and Management After 51-Day Strike
Major Dispute Over Strike Compensation Remains Unresolved... Potential Future Conflict

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Jeong Dong-hoon] Although the negotiation between subcontracted labor and management at Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering was concluded on the 22nd, no agreement was reached regarding compensation for damages caused by the strike, which was the biggest obstacle in the negotiations.

On the 22nd, the subcontracted labor union stated, "We have agreed to a 4.5% wage increase," and "We have agreed to continue employment for workers who are currently working at companies that closed after the strike." In addition, they promised to pay 500,000 KRW for holiday bonuses such as Lunar New Year and Chuseok, and 400,000 KRW for summer vacation bonuses.

However, both sides announced that they could not reach an agreement on the issue of compensation for damages during the strike, specifically regarding civil and criminal immunity. According to the management's estimate, the damage caused by the 51-day strike amounts to approximately 800 billion KRW.

The management insisted that compensation claims are inevitable due to the damage amounting to several hundred billion won caused by the illegal strike. They emphasized that if responsibility for the illegal strike is not held, it could set a bad precedent and the management could be punished for breach of duty. The labor side has argued that such actions against workers who actually cannot pay compensation are a form of retaliation.

The regulations related to compensation for damages are stated in Article 750 of the Civil Act: "A person who causes damage to another by an unlawful act intentionally or negligently shall be liable for compensation for the damage." In this case, the controversy starts with the legality or illegality of the subcontracted union's strike.

The labor side holds the position that the strike is a lawful collective action and therefore cannot be subject to compensation claims. They cite Article 33 of the Constitution, which states, "Workers shall have the right to freely organize, bargain collectively, and take collective action to improve working conditions," and Article 3 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which states, "An employer may not claim compensation against a labor union or workers for damages caused by collective bargaining or collective action."

Even if the management files a lawsuit, there are no workers who can pay compensation amounting to tens or hundreds of billions of won. Workers who cannot afford litigation costs sometimes take extreme measures if provisional seizure is imposed on their jeonse deposits or ancestral gravesites. Accordingly, there is speculation that whether or not to provide compensation for damages in the future could become another source of conflict.

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