According to the Supreme Court ruling, if a trade union is financially supported by its company in terms of accommodation for executives and expenses for time-off officers, then the trade union should return this support to its company as it is categorized as an unfair labor practice, regardless of labor-management agreements.
On 21 February, the Supreme Court confirmed the original verdict in a lawsuit raised by Hyundai Motor in favor of the company when it “demanded return of apartments and cars” from Hyundai Motor branch union, affiliated with the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU). The object of the lawsuit is 2 apartments for executives of Hyundai Motor branch union in Seoul and 13 cars owned by the company.
[Table 1] Outline of Hyundai Motor Case
|
2004 |
Hyundai Motor provided 2 apartments and 13 cars |
|
2010 |
Revision of the Trade Union & Labor Relations Adjustment Act, time-off system enforced in July 2010 |
|
2011 |
Hyundai Motor raised a lawsuit for the return of real estate (apartments) in 2011 ※ Company won 1st and 2nd trials |
|
2016 |
Company won the Supreme Court case |
(Supreme Court 28 January 2016, 2013 Da 72046)
The Supreme Court explained that “a company’s financial support for the operation of its trade union that goes beyond the limits determined by law is an unfair labor practice, because it may harm the independence of a trade union. A company’s financial support for the operation of its trade union is still an unfair labor practice even if that financial support is attained as a result of a trade union’s active demands or industrial action.”
The court has recently been strict in its interpretation of Article 81 (4) of the Trade Union & Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) regarding prohibition of financial support for the operation of a trade union. In particular, this ruling is significant in that it implies that such financial support is categorized as an unfair labor practice even if it is attained as a result of a trade union’s industrial action.