Workplace Bullying Dispute... Court Ruling Aligns with Coupang's Position

"I don't think we (the union) have any reason to be scared, haha. It seems like they (the company) are the ones who are scared, hehe."

This was posted by Coupang employee A in February 2021 on an online community created while pushing for the establishment of a labor union within the company. B, A’s manager and senior colleague, who saw this post, said, "You can post anything related to the company, but why use expressions that insult all managers? If you want to write posts related to me in the future, write my full name, and if you don’t want to, don’t write at all." B was reported by A for this remark, accused of threatening related to union membership and workplace harassment. Coupang’s internal investigation concluded that this was not workplace harassment, but the Labor Office considered it workplace harassment. B contested the Labor Office’s decision and took the case to court, engaging in a legal battle for over a year. Recently, the court ruled that Coupang’s investigation result was correct.

The court ruling, which this outlet exclusively confirmed on the 27th, clearly shows how the Labor Office’s acceptance of A’s claim for union establishment at Coupang disrupted the ordinary life of employee B. According to the ruling, B was recognized as having committed workplace harassment based on the Labor Office’s judgment, received a written warning, and was separated from A to work in different shifts. At the time B’s life changed significantly due to this, A became an official of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, requested five months of paid leave from the company, and applied for industrial accident medical care, receiving insurance benefits for two years.

Previously, B argued in court through legal representation that "the remark was made solely to maintain workplace order concerning A’s negligence," and that "the separation caused restrictions on working conditions and significant financial disadvantages." The first trial court accepted B’s claims based on statements and petitions submitted by Coupang employees, and the ruling also stated, "It appears that many problems arose among colleagues due to A’s unfaithful work performance."

If this court ruling is finalized, the written warning and separation measures previously imposed on B will be canceled. It is not confirmed whether the Central Labor Relations Commission, the defendant in this case, has decided to appeal. In administrative litigation, if a party wishes to appeal a judgment, they can submit an appeal within two weeks from the date the judgment is delivered. A Coupang representative said, "We have once again confirmed that important truths were obscured due to the union’s unilateral false claims," and added, "We will do our best to protect employees so that no one suffers unfairly from the union’s malicious false claims in the future."

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