Publisher That Did Not Announce Despite Labor Union's Collective Bargaining Demand... Court Rules "Unfair Labor Practice Confirmed"

[Court Ruling]

The Administrative Court has ruled that a publishing company’s failure to announce the labor union’s collective bargaining request constitutes an unfair labor practice. The Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 12 (Presiding Judge Kang Jaewon) dismissed the lawsuit filed by publishing company A against the Central Labor Relations Commission (CLRC) seeking to overturn the retrial decision on unfair labor practice relief (2024GuHap51431) on October 31 of last year.

Government Sejong Complex, Ministry of Employment and Labor. Photo by Yonhap News

원본보기 아이콘

[Facts]

Company A, which employs approximately 98 regular workers, is a publishing company specializing in elementary, middle, and high school reference books and textbooks. On November 29, 2022, Branch B, a branch of a nationwide labor union representing media industry workers including those in journalism and publishing, was established at Company A. On December 1 of the same year, Branch B notified Company A of its establishment and, in April 2023, requested collective bargaining and the unification of bargaining channels pursuant to Article 29 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Labor Union Act). However, Company A did not comply with the announcement procedure stipulated in Article 14-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act.

In response, Branch B filed a correction request with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul RLR Commission). The Seoul RLR Commission acknowledged that Company A failed to announce the bargaining request and accepted Branch B’s correction request. However, Company A did not comply with the correction order, and Branch B proceeded to file a relief application with the Seoul RLR Commission. The Seoul RLR Commission recognized Company A’s actions as unfair labor practices, and the CLRC also acknowledged Company A’s unfair labor practices and dismissed the retrial application.

However, Company A filed a lawsuit claiming that the CLRC’s retrial decision was illegal. The lawsuit argued that the retrial decision, which deemed the failure to announce the bargaining request and to proceed with the unification of bargaining channels as unfair labor practices, was unlawful.

Company A argued, "We could not verify whether Branch B is a legitimate labor union, and since we mainly produce reference books, we are unrelated to Branch B, which is a media labor union. The bargaining channel unification system under the Labor Union Act presupposes the existence of two or more labor unions, but since only one labor union exists at our workplace, there is no need to apply the bargaining channel unification system."

[Court Judgment]

The court rejected Company A’s claims, stating, "Company A’s failure to announce the collective bargaining request and follow the procedure constitutes a refusal to bargain prohibited under Article 81(3) of the Labor Union Act."

The court explained, "According to Article 14-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act, even if only one labor union exists at a workplace, the fact of the bargaining request must be announced." The relevant enforcement decree provision requires the employer to announce the name of the labor union that made the bargaining request within seven days from the date the employer receives the request. There is no limitation indicating that this announcement system applies only when multiple labor unions exist at a single workplace.

The court also recognized the legitimacy of Branch B as a labor union. The court stated, "Branch B is a nationwide industrial labor union established under the Labor Union Act, and it is an organization that workers belonging to Company A can join." The court found that Company A was aware that Branch B was a legitimate labor union but denied this fact.

The court also dismissed Company A’s claim that "no workers belonging to Company A joined Branch B." The court ruled, "The IT department head and the office manager, whose qualifications as union members were questioned by Company A, do not have authority over personnel, payroll, or labor management," and thus, under Article 2 of the Labor Union Act, there are no restrictions on their qualifications as union members.

Reporter Jihyun Kim, Legal Newspaper

※This article was written based on content provided by the Legal Newspaper.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.