We avoided the worst-case scenario.
Essential personnel are a minority compared with the total staff, so large-scale losses are inevitable during a strike.
After the court broadly recognized the obligation to maintain safety protection facilities and security operations in the case of an injunction to ban unlawful industrial action filed by Samsung Electronics against the labor union, this assessment emerged inside the company. Along with a sense of relief that the worst-case scenario—stopping the safety and security functions of the semiconductor production line—was avoided, there are simultaneous voices saying that if an actual strike drags on, concerns about losses from production disruptions remain.
The Suwon District Court on the 18th partially granted an injunction request by Samsung Electronics to ban unlawful industrial action against the Samsung Group's cross-company labor union's Samsung Electronics chapter (the cross-company union), which holds a majority, and the second-largest union, the National Samsung Electronics Labor Union. On Apr. 16, Samsung Electronics filed for an injunction to ban the illegal activities of the two unions, which formed a joint struggle headquarters and are pushing ahead with a general strike.
The court ruled that all the facilities Samsung Electronics claimed as safety protection facilities—such as disaster prevention, exhaust, and drainage—fall under safety protection facilities under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Accordingly, even during industrial action, the union side must maintain and operate those facilities with staffing levels, operating hours, and operating scale equal to normal times.
The court also found that the tasks Samsung Electronics presented, such as work to prevent deterioration of wafers, the semiconductor substrates, fall under security operations. Work to prevent damage to production facilities or deterioration of raw materials and products must be performed at the same level as normal even during industrial action.
Along with this, the court also issued an order to the cross-company union to ban the occupation of production facilities. In light of the intent and interpretation of Article 42, Paragraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it found that all the facilities asserted by Samsung Electronics can be viewed as subject to a ban on occupation. Accordingly, the cross-company union must not occupy all or part of the facilities, install locks, or obstruct workers' access.
However, the prevailing interpretation is that this should be seen as meaning the union must not physically obstruct the access or production activities of employees who are not participating in the strike. Because of this, if the number of members participating in the strike is large and the situation becomes prolonged, substantial business damage could occur. A legal source said, "The court did not deny the possibility of actual production disruptions due to the strike itself, nor did it find that production must proceed without disruption during the strike."
The court also ruled that if these prohibitions are violated, each union must pay 100 million won per day and union executives must pay 10 million won per day to Samsung Electronics.
Inside Samsung Electronics, the reaction is that this decision avoided a situation in which core safety and security functions of semiconductor production lines would be halted. As the court relatively broadly recognized the scope of safety protection facilities and security operations, a framework has been established under which the minimum production base and facility protection systems can be maintained even if the union goes on strike.
Still, concerns have not been completely resolved. During the trial, Samsung Electronics calculated the personnel related to safety protection facilities and security operations that must be maintained during a strike and submitted it to the court. This reportedly amounted to only about 5% to 7% of the total workforce. As the court partially, not fully, granted Samsung Electronics' request, some interpret that the scope of strike restrictions has been narrowed compared with the level the management side sought.
In fact, the court did not issue a separate prohibition order against the National Samsung Electronics Labor Union, saying the likelihood of occupying production facilities was not high. It also dismissed applications to ban intimidation of members or calls to participate in the strike, judging that there was insufficient need.
The semiconductor process is structured so that equipment and processes are continuously interlocked. This means that even if safety and security personnel are maintained, bottlenecks can occur across production, quality, and shipping. Given the manufacturing characteristics that run from wafer input through processing, inspection, and packaging, even a halt in some processes can lead to accumulating losses, which is cited as a burden.
Inside and outside Samsung Electronics, the analysis is that while the court's decision has limited the scope of the union's industrial action to some extent, production disruptions and the burden of responding to clients are inevitable if the strike goes ahead. A semiconductor industry source familiar with the internal situation at Samsung Electronics said, "The injunction has reduced the possibility of the worst accidents, but normal production cannot be maintained with only essential maintenance personnel," adding, "If participation in the strike grows, the risk of losses will inevitably remain."