The Supreme Court ruled that Webzen's failure to pay wage increases and incentives to a full-time union official constitutes an unfair labor practice.
According to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) chemical, fiber, and food union on the 6th, the Supreme Court on the 30th dismissed Webzen's appeal in the final appeal of the lawsuit seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission's re-adjudication granting relief for unfair labor practices, which Webzen had filed against the commission.
Earlier, the Webzen union filed for relief for unfair labor practices with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, saying management did not pay branch chief Noh Young-ho, a full-time union official, the wage increases and incentives for 2022 and 2023.
The union and management agreed under the collective agreement and wage agreement to pay full-time officials' wage increases and incentives at the average level of union members, but the union said management failed to carry this out after labor-management relations deteriorated.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission accepted the union's claim and found that Webzen management's conduct was an unfair labor practice.
Webzen argued that to calculate the amount to be paid to a full-time official, it had to compute the overall average of union members, but payment was difficult because the union did not provide member information, and it filed an administrative lawsuit in 2024.
The Seoul Administrative Court, which heard the first trial, viewed that due to labor-management conflict, including the dismissal of the senior vice branch chief, union members had little choice but to avoid consenting to checkoff (a system in which the employer collects union dues on behalf of the union as stipulated in the collective agreement). Because consenting to checkoff allows the company to identify union members, the court said it was inherently difficult to provide a union membership list.
It then found that management's continued demand for an unworkable measure and failure to pay the wage increases amounted to "in effect, a refusal to pay," and constituted an unfair labor practice of disadvantageous treatment.
The appellate court reached the same conclusion in Nov. last year. At the time, the court found that although Webzen proposed resolving the issue by revising the collective agreement, in substance it was no different from demanding the provision of a union membership list.
Webzen appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding that the grounds for appeal did not fall within the legal scope of review.
Noh Young-ho, Webzen branch chief, said, "This ruling clearly confirms that arbitrarily interpreting the contents of labor-management agreements to disadvantage legitimate union activity is unlawful."