Industrial Protection vs. Labor Rights: What Will Happen to Samsung's Strike? [Companies on Alert Over Strikes]

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s record-breaking results, driven by the semiconductor boom, have come back as a boomerang in the form of a union general strike demanding performance bonus distribution. To prevent the strike in advance, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed for an injunction to prohibit illegal labor disputes. The company asked the court to block actions that could be deemed unlawful, arguing that the strike contains illegal elements and that the damage from a shutdown would be enormous given the nature of the semiconductor industry. The court is also expected to weigh the protection of a national strategic industry against the labor rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
According to legal sources on the 6th, the Suwon District Court, which is handling Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s request for an injunction against unlawful acts, is expected to issue a ruling no later than the 20th, the day before the planned general strike.
On the 16th of last month, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. submitted its petition to the court, asking it to prohibit potentially unlawful acts such as obstructing the normal operation of in-house safety facilities, halting work to prevent equipment damage and the deterioration of raw materials and products, and occupying key facilities at the workplace.
Under Article 42, Paragraph 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, union strikes are prohibited at 'safety protection facilities' that are critical to life and safety. Samsung argues that if semiconductor production lines handling hazardous chemicals are shut down, the result would not only be production disruptions but also the risk of major accidents, including explosions. For that reason, the company says 7,000 essential workers, or 8.9% of its total workforce, must be maintained. The union disputes that claim, saying there is no basis for it.
A labor lawyer said, "Even Supreme Court of Korea precedents say strikes should be barred if a facility could pose a direct threat to life and bodily safety." He added, "However, there has been no case in which the court ruled on the size of the workforce rather than on whether a facility qualifies as a safety protection facility."
A former chief judge turned lawyer said, "There is a risk of urgent and irreparable harm, and the purpose of the strike is not simply to improve working conditions but to address bonus distribution, so unlike an ordinary strike, its legitimacy is unclear." He added, "I also question whether an employer's management decision on profit distribution can be treated as a working condition and made the subject of a labor dispute." He predicted that "the injunction will be granted."
On the other hand, some say the chances of the injunction being granted are not high. Park Sang-heum, a lawyer at Woori Deul Law Firm, said, "In the case of an injunction, urgency and the need for preservation must be satisfied at least formally." He added, "The chance of the injunction being dismissed is 95%." A lawyer at a major law firm also said, "The semiconductor process is not a 'essential public service workplace,' and the union has said it will not stop or occupy the lines." He added, "Unless there are procedural flaws, it will be difficult for the injunction to be granted."
If the injunction is dismissed and the union strike becomes a reality, there is also a possibility of damages lawsuits against the union. Some Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. shareholders are already known to have filed complaints against union members.
hwlee@fnnews.com