Supreme Court: Hyundai Heavy Industries Not Obligated to Bargain with Subcontractor Union

In a significant decision for labor relations in South Korea's heavy industry sector, the Supreme Court has ruled that HD Hyundai Heavy Industries is not obligated to conduct collective bargaining with the union representing workers from its subcontractors. This verdict upholds the principle that the direct employer-employee relationship, as defined by existing labor laws, is paramount in determining bargaining obligations.

“

The nature of judicial proceedings is to provide relief for specific cases, and abstract legal principles unrelated to specific cases cannot be declared.

The case centered on a collective bargaining request filed by the internal subcontracting union of HD Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2017. The union sought to negotiate terms related to subcontracting contract terminations, union activities, and employment guarantees. However, the Supreme Court, in a 8-4 decision, affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the parent company, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, does not fall under the definition of an employer responsible for collective bargaining with the subcontractors' union under the labor laws applicable at the time the suit was filed.

A key point of contention was the application of the recently enacted 'Yellow Envelope Law' (amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Act), which broadened the definition of an employer to include those who can effectively determine labor conditions, even if not the direct contracting party. However, the Supreme Court determined that this law, effective since March, should not be applied retroactively to a case initiated nine years ago. The court emphasized that judicial rulings should address specific disputes under the laws in effect at the time of the dispute, rather than applying new legislation retrospectively.

“

It is sufficient to interpret the relevant concepts in accordance with the legislative purpose of effectively guaranteeing labor rights in specific cases where the amended Labor Union Act applies in the future.

While the majority decision adhered to the principle of non-retroactivity, a dissenting opinion argued for a broader interpretation of 'employer' based on the spirit of constitutional labor rights and the intent of the labor law. The dissenting justices pointed out that lower courts had previously interpreted the 'employer' definition more broadly, suggesting the amendment merely codified existing trends. This divergence highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation and application of labor laws in protecting workers' rights within complex subcontracting structures prevalent in Korean industries.

“

In light of the spirit of Article 33 of the Constitution (guaranteeing labor rights) and the legislative intent of the former Labor Union Act, the meaning of 'employer' should also be understood from the perspective of who has the status and authority to effectively guarantee and realize labor rights, considering the reality of the labor supply relationship.