Samsung Biologics(207940) With labor and management failing to find common ground in wage and collective agreement talks for six months, even the post-mediation process now appears likely to stall. The company asked the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission to postpone the second post-mediation set for the 15th. As a result, the intensive labor-management talks slated for the 10th–11th were canceled.
Samsung Biologics said on the 9th it delivered an official letter to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission requesting a delay of the second post-mediation schedule. The commission plans to review the company's request until the 14th.
The postponement request came as the union shared the minutes of the first post-mediation with all employees and continued seven legal actions filed against the company and the CEO. The company's position is that under such circumstances, post-mediation cannot function as a venue for substantive dialogue.
Earlier, labor and management held the first post-mediation on the 8th at the Incheon commission. At the time, the two sides agreed on a schedule to hold autonomous talks on the collective agreement on the 10th–11th and then attend the second mediation meeting on the 15th. In this process, Vice President Lee Gyu-ho of Samsung Biologics was scheduled to join the intensive talks, but the schedule itself was canceled at the company's request for a delay.
The union pushed back, saying the company's delay request raised "doubts about its willingness to negotiate."
The union said that at the 27th round of talks the company noted it would "consider options that could lead to real progress," but in the first post-mediation the company did not present a proactive proposal. It added that it had not withdrawn from post-mediation participation and only asked the company's representative to clearly show a commitment to a deal.
The union especially took issue with the company citing disclosure of the minutes as a reason to delay post-mediation. It said it had consistently compiled negotiation details into minutes and shared them with employees, and that it had proposed drafting the minutes jointly with the company, which the company rejected, forcing the union to draft them on its own.
The conflict between the company and the union also spread into a dispute over the contents of the minutes.
In an email sent to employees on the 8th, the company claimed the union unilaterally disclosed the minutes ahead of the post-mediation schedule and distributed leaflets criticizing the company by distorting and editing parts of the content. It also said the union mentioned withdrawing from post-mediation and fighting with every means, pointing out that the mediation process could be used as a tool for other purposes rather than a forum for normal dialogue.
The company also said it would "respond strictly in accordance with the law and principles" to the seven legal disputes filed by the union and recent acts of distortion and slander.
The union countered that it questioned which law sharing the minutes violated and which parts of the minutes constituted defamation, adding that if the company viewed them as falsehoods, it could seek a judgment through legal procedures. It also said the seven disputes it filed were not actions to obstruct negotiations, but an exercise of legal rights to address the company's illegal acts.
The claim that the company did not present a separate proposal in the first post-mediation also drew divergent views.
The union claims the company did not present a substantive proposal. The company, however, countered that the purpose of the first mediation meeting was not to present the company's proposal, but to set basic rules for future talks and establish a schedule. The company said the union was aware of this in advance.
The two sides also clashed over remarks by the mediators. The union interpreted the minutes as showing that the mediators pointed out the company's passive negotiation stance. The company countered that the mediators' remarks were not aimed at either side, but urged both labor and management to negotiate with sincerity by presenting compromise-ready proposals.
The gap is also wide over the union's demands for the collective agreement. The union claims it has already offered some revised proposals, but the company sees the revised content as essentially no different from the original demands, still requiring the union's prior consent or consultation for changes to HR systems or for personnel redeployment and organizational restructuring.
The future negotiation schedule will likely depend on whether the Incheon commission accepts the company's request to delay the second post-mediation. While both sides say they intend to continue talks, the gap over the disclosure of minutes and legal disputes remains unresolved, suggesting a bumpy road before moving on to substantive wage and collective agreement negotiations.
Samsung Biologics said it "sought to negotiate faithfully until the end, but the union's repeated breaches of agreements and distortions and slander forced a delay in the schedule," and urged the union "to restore at least a minimum level of responsibility and trust as a negotiating party and return to a venue for sincere dialogue."