A court partially allowed a strike by the Samsung Biologics union. The union said it will press ahead with the strike announced for May 1. The company said it immediately appealed, rejecting the ruling.
On the 24th, according to industry and according to legal sources, the Incheon District Court Civil Division 21 (Presiding Judge Yu Aram) partially granted Samsung Biologics' request for an injunction to ban industrial action against the Samsung Enterprise Supra-Company Labor Union Samsung Biologics Win-Win Chapter.
The ruling limits strikes only in the final processes where there is a high risk of product deterioration. With strikes effectively allowed in early production processes such as cell culture, the union retained strike momentum.
This labor dispute surfaced after an incident in November last year in which employees' personal information was exposed on the internal network. The union demanded compensation and follow-up measures, and the company continued consultations, but the sides failed to resolve differences and the dispute spread to wages and bonuses.
◇ Court brakes strikes in only 3 processes… "Early processes such as culture are production activities"
According to the written decision containing the legal judgment, the court blocked strikes only for three of the nine tasks the company sought to ban as industrial action (strike): ▲ ultrafiltration and diafiltration (UFDF) ▲ drug substance filling (DS Filling) ▲ buffer preparation and supply related to these.
The panel said the work is "a finishing step that adjusts the material, once drug substance generation is complete, into a form suitable for maintenance and storage," and acknowledged that if not performed on time there is a high risk the product will deteriorate and be discarded.
By contrast, the court dismissed the injunction request for six early processes that the company sought most to protect, including ▲ flask and bioreactor culture ▲ purification and virus filtration. In other words, it ruled strikes are possible.
The panel held that "given the nature of continuous processes, the mere fact that significant damage may occur if work is halted does not allow viewing all production processes as 'work to prevent deterioration.'" Because culture and similar processes are "active production activities" that create value, banning them would essentially infringe on the right to strike guaranteed by the Constitution.
In particular, the court did not recognize as a strike-restricted task the "management of thawed cell lines," which the company had emphasized. This is interpreted as the logic that "while already-made products must not deteriorate or spoil, a strike that shuts down the plant is legitimate."
Regarding those processes, the panel said they "constitute production activities that actively create added value," but also noted, "You cannot restrict industrial action itself merely because economic losses would be large if halted."
◇ Union: "May strike" vs. company: "defiance," tensions rise
The ruling delivered mixed fortunes to labor and management.
The Samsung Biologics union plans to push ahead with the strike announced for May 1 based on this ruling. Park Jae-seong, chairperson of the Samsung Biologics Win-Win Union, said, "Because the ruling requires work only for some processes that turn material into product, we do not expect major obstacles to the strike."
Management had sought to keep all processes running, but with only the finishing processes protected, it now faces an urgent need to prepare responses to production disruptions if a strike occurs.
Management immediately began appeal procedures. Samsung Biologics said, "We received the written decision and confirmed that it was partially granted, and we filed an immediate appeal regarding the parts not granted."
This decision is the first case in the bio industry in which a court recognized the scope of "work to prevent the deterioration and spoilage of raw materials and products" as defined in Article 38, Paragraph 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
The company said the ruling is meaningful in that "it confirms that the right to strike is not guaranteed without limit and can be restricted depending on industry characteristics and process risks," adding it is "a decision that puts some brakes on a strike that could have proceeded even at the cost of production disruptions."
There are concerns the fallout from this labor dispute could be large. A bio industry official said, "Continuity is key in biopharmaceutical processes," adding, "If there is a history of delivery delays or production instability, you become disadvantaged in winning new contract manufacturing (CMO) and contract development (CDO) orders, and if the situation drags on, existing volumes could also leave."
This ruling is likely to serve as a standard for delineating the scope of strike restrictions in future bio industry labor disputes. The panel set forth the principle that "the mere fact that losses may occur due to process stoppage cannot essentially infringe the constitutionally guaranteed right to strike." A legal industry official said, "A concrete guideline has been presented on how far to view as essential maintenance work in contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) businesses for biopharmaceuticals," adding, "It will be an important precedent in disputes in similar sectors."