A court has ruled that a company filing civil and criminal legal proceedings against a labor union during a labor dispute does not, by itself, constitute an unfair labor practice. Even if such proceedings were partly aimed at curbing protests or rallies, that alone cannot be deemed an unfair labor practice that infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed right to trial, the court held. The ruling, which overturned decisions by both the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission, is expected to influence similar cases by drawing a line between corporate rights to seek judicial remedy and the scope of protection for union activities, particularly following the implementation of the so-called Yellow Envelope Act (the revised Trade Union Act).
According to the legal community on Wednesday, the Seoul Administrative Court recently ruled in favor of Company A, a wedding hall operator, in a lawsuit it filed against the National Labor Relations Commission seeking to overturn the commission's review decision. Earlier, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission had ruled that civil and criminal lawsuits filed by Company A against the union constituted unfair labor practices intended to chill legitimate union activities. The court, however, rejected this view.
The dispute originated from wage negotiations between Company A and the union. After the two sides reached an impasse, the union staged protests during clients' wedding events, holding placards bearing slogans such as "Honor the negotiations" and "Do not avoid bargaining." Union members also held picket protests with banners in front of the home of Company A's chief executive. In response, Company A initiated civil and criminal proceedings, including claims for obstruction of business, defamation and damages. The union then filed a request for relief with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing that Company A's lawsuits had interfered with legitimate union activities.
The labor commissions sided with the union. Both the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission found that Company A's lawsuits had been filed with the purpose of suppressing the union's rallies and industrial action, and recognized them as unfair labor practices. Company A challenged the decision and filed a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Commission seeking to overturn the review.
Company A was represented by attorneys Kim Young-jin, Oh Yong-soo and Seo Yu-sung of the labor practice group at law firm Bae, Kim & Lee (Lee & Ko). Kim previously served as a labor-specialized research judge at the Supreme Court and as a judge on a labor-dedicated bench at the Seoul High Court during his judicial career. Oh and Seo are also attorneys at the firm's labor group, having handled a wide range of human resources and labor cases involving night-shift allowances, confirmation of worker status and severance pay.
During the trial, the legal team argued that Company A's lawsuits were not acts intended to suppress union activities, but rather a legitimate exercise of the right to seek the court's judgment on whether the union's protests amounted to obstruction of business or defamation. Their argument was that the mere fact that a company pursued civil and criminal legal procedures cannot, in itself, be regarded as an unfair labor practice infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed right to trial.
The administrative court accepted this argument. The court stated, "The fact that damage claims and other lawsuits also carry the purpose of deterring the same conduct from being repeated in the future cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was an intent to commit an unfair labor practice," adding, "There is insufficient evidence to recognize this as an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union Act."
"Civil and criminal lawsuits are an exercise of a constitutional right to seek the court's determination of whether a union's actions amount to interference with business or defamation," Kim said. "With this ruling, Company A is now able to be guaranteed the right to trial enshrined in the Constitution." He added, "If even a company's right to trial is not recognized in the course of a labor dispute, the path to legal remedy for companies becomes effectively blocked. This could instead have the side effect of pushing companies toward private responses rather than legal procedures."
Article 27 of the Constitution provides that all citizens have the right to be tried, in conformity with the Constitution and laws, by judges qualified under the Constitution and the law.
