Samsung Biologics(207940) The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the union's application for relief over unfair labor practices. The union argued that the company's direct delivery of its position to union members via emails in the CEO's name during the strike phase constituted an unfair labor practice, but the claim was not accepted. The union plans to file for a retrial with the Central Labor Relations Commission.
On the 14th, according to Union Chairperson Park Jae-seong, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed on the 6th the union's application for relief over unfair labor practices filed earlier. Park said in a phone interview with ChosunBiz, "As far as I know, it usually takes about a month for the final decision to be issued," adding, "Once the decision comes out, we will reinforce the legal arguments and immediately file for a retrial with the Central Labor Relations Commission."
This application for relief stemmed from labor-management conflict following the breakdown of this year's wage talks.
Labor and management completed the Central Labor Relations Commission mediation process on Mar. 23, and the union secured the right to strike. Afterward, the company explained to employees the company's proposal, including the wage increase rate and bonuses, via emails in the CEO's name and the in-house bulletin board. On Apr. 30, a day before a full strike, it also sent an email in the CEO's name asking for "careful consideration."
The union applied to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission for relief, saying the company's direct delivery of its position to union members without going through the union, the bargaining counterpart, was an act of domination and interference aimed at weakening industrial action.
During the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission's review, an email the company sent on May 8 in the name of the People Experience team became a major point of contention. Through the email, the company informed employees that it had filed a criminal complaint against the union for obstruction of business and conveyed its view that the union's strike guidelines might violate the court's injunction.
Chairperson Park said, "During the review, questions continued as to whether there was an actual effect of intimidating the union," adding, "The union's position is that before the court's final judgment, the company sought to intimidate union members by treating illegality as a fait accompli."
In legal circles, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission is seen as having determined the company's emails and internal communications to be legitimate management activity. It is interpreted as finding it difficult to recognize the elements of an unfair labor practice, such as threats of disadvantage or promises of benefits to the extent of infringing on union autonomy. The part where the union took issue with the company's external public relations spending and some media reports was also not accepted.
Both labor and management are expected to return to the bargaining table on the 15th. The union argued that since the Central Labor Relations Commission mediation process ended in March, the company has not presented a new proposal and has not been actively participating in talks while waiting for the result of the court's appeal on the injunction.
Earlier, on Apr. 23, the court partially granted the company's request for an injunction banning industrial action. While excluding the culture and purification processes, it ruled that some processes that store active pharmaceutical ingredient finished goods must operate normally even during the strike. The union objected and filed an appeal, and the appellate hearing concluded on the 3rd.
Chairperson Park said, "Today (the 14th) we are scheduled to meet with the Incheon mayor's office, and if possible, we plan to meet the mayor directly as well to request the local community's attention."