The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that found CJ Logistics (000120.KS) committed an unfair labor practice by refusing collective bargaining with courier drivers in 2020, before the Yellow Envelope Law (the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) took effect. The decision follows a May en banc precedent by the Supreme Court holding that for cases predating the Yellow Envelope Law (Articles 2 and 3 of the revised Trade Union Act), a principal contractor bears no duty to bargain collectively with a subcontractor's union.
The Supreme Court's third division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 9th struck down the appellate court's ruling against the plaintiff in the suit CJ Logistics filed against the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
"No explicit or implicit employment contract relationship can be recognized between the plaintiff (CJ Logistics) and the courier drivers at collection-and-delivery agencies, so it is difficult to view the plaintiff as an employer bearing a collective bargaining obligation toward those drivers under the former Trade Union Act," the Supreme Court said.
The National Courier Workers' Union, composed of courier drivers, demanded collective bargaining in March 2020. CJ Logistics refused. The union then filed for remedy with a regional labor commission, which sided with CJ Logistics, but the National Labor Relations Commission reversed that decision on review and ruled that the refusal constituted an unfair labor practice.
CJ Logistics contested the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit in July 2021. Both the first and second trials, however, sided with the courier union, finding that CJ Logistics, as an employer, was obligated to respond to the union's demand for collective bargaining. The first-instance court ruled that "an employer under the Trade Union Act includes not only a person in an explicit or implicit employment contract relationship with workers, but also a person who, as the business owner employing the workers, assumes a certain degree of authority and responsibility and is in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine the workers' conditions."
The first-instance court noted that without such an interpretation, subcontracted workers would be unable to fully exercise their three basic labor rights guaranteed by the Constitution due to the principal contractor's complex labor relationships, and held that "the claim that CJ Logistics is not an employer cannot serve as a legitimate reason for refusing collective bargaining."
The Supreme Court judged otherwise. It found that no explicit or implicit employment contract relationship could be recognized between CJ Logistics and the courier drivers at collection-and-delivery agencies. Under the legal doctrine predating the revision, "substantial control" alone cannot impose a collective bargaining obligation on a principal contractor. The Supreme Court said that "no explicit or implicit employment contract relationship can be recognized between the plaintiff (CJ Logistics) and the courier drivers at collection-and-delivery agencies, so it is difficult to view the plaintiff as an employer bearing a collective bargaining obligation under the former Trade Union Act in relation to those drivers," and ruled that the lower court had misunderstood the legal principles on employers and collective bargaining under the former Trade Union Act.
Earlier, on May 21 this year, the Supreme Court's en banc panel upheld a lower court ruling against the plaintiff in a collective bargaining suit brought against HD Hyundai Heavy Industries by the in-house subcontractor chapter of the Korean Metal Workers' Union's Hyundai Heavy Industries branch. At the time, the full bench held that cases predating the revised Trade Union Act (the Yellow Envelope Law), which took effect in March this year, should properly follow the previous legal doctrine. As the dispute between CJ Logistics and the courier union ruled on this day also predates the Yellow Envelope Law, the ruling reaffirmed that earlier doctrine.
