The Supreme Court ruled that CJ Logistics (000120.KS) did not commit an unfair labor practice when it refused collective bargaining with delivery workers before the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, known as the "yellow envelope law," took effect. The ruling holds that since there is no direct employment contract between CJ Logistics and delivery workers at distribution branches, it is difficult to recognize the company's collective bargaining obligation as an employer under the pre-revision union law.
The ruling is expected to make it considerably harder for subcontracted unions to establish a bargaining obligation based solely on "actual control" in cases concerning prime contractor employer status filed before the yellow envelope law took effect.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-koo) on the 9th overturned the lower court ruling that had found against the plaintiff and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. The case was an appeal filed by CJ Logistics against the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission seeking to cancel a retrial decision on unfair labor practice remedies.
The Supreme Court said, "Since neither an explicit nor an implicit employment contract relationship can be recognized between CJ Logistics and the distribution branch delivery workers, it is difficult to regard CJ Logistics as an employer bearing a collective bargaining obligation under the old union law." The court held that even if a prime contractor exercises a certain degree of influence over the working conditions of subcontracted workers, no collective bargaining obligation can be imposed under the pre-revision union law without an employment contract relationship.
The case began in March 2020 when the National Delivery Workers Union under the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions demanded collective bargaining from CJ Logistics. The delivery union argued that the company should respond to bargaining because branch-affiliated workers are also subject to CJ Logistics' direction and influence throughout their delivery duties. CJ Logistics, on the other hand, refused to bargain, saying it was not an employer under union law because there was no direct employment relationship.
The delivery union filed for remedy with a regional labor relations commission, but the commission sided with CJ Logistics. However, the National Labor Relations Commission ruled in a retrial that CJ Logistics' refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice. CJ Logistics then filed an administrative lawsuit in July 2021.
Both the first and second trials accepted the arguments of the delivery union and the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the Supreme Court maintained the existing legal principle that an employer bearing a collective bargaining obligation under the pre-revision union law is, in principle, one who has entered into an explicit or implicit employment contract relationship with the worker.
This is an extension of a full-bench Supreme Court ruling on May 21 this year. At that time, the full bench confirmed a ruling against the plaintiff in a collective bargaining suit filed by the in-house subcontracting chapter of the Hyundai Heavy Industries branch of the Korean Metal Workers' Union against HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (329180.KS), holding that the previous legal principle should apply to matters before the yellow envelope law took effect. The CJ Logistics case, which concerned a bargaining refusal in 2020, was governed by the same legal principle.
However, the Supreme Court separately left open the possibility of applying the revised union law. The court said, "It is a separate matter that in future specific cases where the revised Trade Union Act applies, the concept of employer must be interpreted in accordance with the legislative purpose of effectively guaranteeing the three basic labor rights." This means that in cases arising after the revised law took effect, different rulings may result depending on whether the prime contractor's actual control is recognized.
Analysts say the ruling makes it inevitable for unions pursuing similar cases filed before the yellow envelope law took effect to revise their strategies. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied prime contractors' obligation to bargain with subcontracted unions in cases governed by the old law, it has become difficult to establish employer status based solely on "actual control" in existing lawsuits. As a result, even if unions maintain their old-law cases, they are likely to place greater weight on new prime contractor bargaining demands and labor commission procedures filed after the revised union law took effect.
Of course, even under the revised law, a prime contractor's bargaining obligation does not extend to all working conditions. Since the structure recognizes employer status only for agenda items that the prime contractor substantially and specifically controls and determines, much more complex and frequent conflicts are expected to arise centered on agenda items where the prime contractor's influence is relatively clear—such as unit prices, fees, volume allocation, working hours, and safety management—rather than wages themselves.
The delivery union protested the ruling. Kim Kwang-seok, chairman of the delivery union, said, "It is a backward ruling that ignored the cries of delivery workers," adding, "The court reached this decision on the grounds of the old law, but there will be no interruption or reversal of the prime contractor bargaining procedures currently underway under the revised union law."
Meanwhile, CJ Logistics announced in March this year, after the yellow envelope law took effect, that it would enter into collective bargaining with the delivery union. However, this is interpreted not as fully recognizing the prime contractor's employer status, but as an intention to respond to bargaining only on agenda items where the prime contractor's actual control is recognized under the revised union law.
