The Supreme Court overturned and remanded a lower court ruling that had found CJ Logistics must respond to the collective bargaining requested by delivery drivers. It determined that CJ Logistics is not the employer of the delivery drivers. However, because the drivers requested collective bargaining with CJ Logistics before the "the yellow envelope law, a new labor law aimed at strengthening the bargaining rights of subcontract workers" (the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) took effect, the judgment could change if they renew their request.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 9th overturned the lower ruling and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court in the final appeal of a lawsuit filed by CJ Logistics against the Chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission seeking to cancel a retrial decision on relief for unfair labor practices related to bargaining with the parcel delivery union.
The Supreme Court said, "An explicit or implicit employment contract relationship cannot be recognized between CJ Logistics and delivery drivers affiliated with branch depots," and added, "It is difficult to view CJ Logistics as an employer bearing a duty to engage in collective bargaining under the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in relation to the delivery drivers."
CJ Logistics signs consignment contracts with branch depot owners to assign certain delivery areas. Branch depot owners enter into consignment contracts with delivery drivers to assign parcel delivery work.
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) National Parcel Delivery Workers' Union in 2020 demanded collective bargaining with CJ Logistics, arguing for the introduction of a five‑day workweek and higher fees, among other items. CJ Logistics refused to bargain, saying it did not employ the delivery drivers.
However, the Central Labor Relations Commission found that CJ Logistics is an employer that substantially controls and determines the drivers' working conditions and ruled it had a duty to bargain. CJ Logistics then filed an administrative suit seeking to have that decision annulled.
Both the first and second trials ruled against CJ Logistics in line with the commission's position. The appellate court said, "CJ Logistics is in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine the delivery drivers' working conditions, and therefore qualifies as an employer under the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act."
The Supreme Court, however, maintained its precedent that an employer required to respond to collective bargaining demanded by a labor union must have an explicit or implicit employment contract relationship.
Previously, the full bench of the Supreme Court in May, in the HD Hyundai Heavy Industries case, confirmed that incidents occurring before the "the yellow envelope law, a new labor law aimed at strengthening the bargaining rights of subcontract workers" took effect must follow the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The CJ Logistics case was decided on the same basis.
The "the yellow envelope law, a new labor law aimed at strengthening the bargaining rights of subcontract workers," which took effect in Mar., deems as an employer "a person who, even if not a party to an employment contract, is in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine a worker's working conditions."
A Supreme Court official explained, "In matters to which the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act applies, we confirmed that the existing legal doctrine remains valid." The official added, "In future cases to which the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the 'the yellow envelope law, a new labor law aimed at strengthening the bargaining rights of subcontract workers') applies, the concept of 'a person in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine a worker's working conditions' must be interpreted."