Hongik University filed a lawsuit against the Central Labor Relations Commission (CLRC) of the Ministry of Employment and Labor for rejecting the proposal to raise the salaries of its affiliated faculty union by 3%, ultimately losing the case in the Supreme Court. This lawsuit was the first administrative case regarding wage increase disputes between universities and faculty unions since the legalization of university faculty unions. In effect, the court sided with the faculty.
On the 13th, the Supreme Court's first division (Chief Justice Shin Suk-hee) rejected a motion for non-proceedings in a lawsuit filed by the Hongik Educational Foundation against the chairperson of the CLRC. This confirmed the second court's ruling in favor of Hongik University. A non-proceeding rejection is a decision that reaffirms the original ruling without stating any reasons if there are no significant legal violations.
Earlier, in June 2020, as faculty unions were legalized, wage negotiations between national university faculty unions and universities commenced. The Hongik University faculty union also engaged in collective negotiations for wage agreements with the university in ten rounds from July to December 2021, but failed to reach an agreement, leading to mediation procedures by the CLRC. In May 2022, the CLRC presented a proposal stating, 'Increase the salaries of Hongik University faculty by 3% compared to 2020.' According to the Faculty Union Act, universities as employers may face criminal penalties if they do not implement the proposal.
In response, Hongik University filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court seeking to cancel the proposal. The university argued that the salaries of private university faculty fall under 'budget,' which is not subject to collective agreements according to the Faculty Union Act, and that enforcing the CLRC proposal infringes upon the autonomy and self-governance of the university. The university also claimed difficulties in securing funds as a reason for rejecting the salary increase.
The first trial did not accept Hongik University's claims. The trial court judged that provisions denying the validity of collective agreements under the Faculty Union Act pertain to wages associated with national and public university faculty unions that must utilize national budgets. The court stated, 'Since the compensation for private university faculty members is not determined in the form of laws and budgets by the National Assembly, it is difficult to apply this provision verbatim.'
Additionally, the first trial noted that there had been no review or resolution opposing the salary increase by the Hongik University tuition review committee or the board of directors before and after the CLRC's proposal, and that the university had already executed salary increases in accordance with annual collective agreements with the office workers' union. Thus, even assuming there is some limitation on the university's authority due to this arbitration ruling, the court found that the extent of that limitation does not reach a fundamental or essential level.
Furthermore, the court concluded that Hongik University's financial situation was capable of covering the salary increase for faculty. The court noted, 'According to the school's accounting settlement statement, the unused funds carried over from 2021 have been designated in the budget, indicating that it seems possible to allocate those carried-over funds for the salary increase of faculty as per the arbitration ruling.'
Hongik University appealed the first trial ruling. However, the second trial dismissed the appeal, saying, 'We cite the reasons for the first trial ruling as is.' Consequently, Hongik University appealed to the Supreme Court, but the court confirmed the original ruling through a rejection of non-proceedings.
In the academic and legal communities, attention is focused on whether this ruling will impact lawsuits filed by other university faculty unions. A lawyer specializing in education noted, 'Since this is effectively the first ruling by the Supreme Court in an administrative case between faculty unions and universities, it is likely to influence other lawsuits of a similar nature.'