사설 바카라

1. Case summary

​① 사설 바카라 (specifically, attorneys Sang-Tae Jung, and Eun-Ha Jeong, and a certified labor attorney
Rin Kim) provided advisory service for an executive officer of a company specialized in credit finance (for industries and corporations) with regard to a charge made by a branch manager of a trade union.

​② Case background and the decision made by the competent labor administration: The complainant made the following accusations against the suspect that the suspect had made such statements as “the company does not need a union” and “it is a waste of union fees” during an interview with a subordinate employee who was a non-union member, and such statements disparaging the trade union constituted unfair labor practices. The Seoul Southern Branch of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Administration deemed the statements to be unfair labor practices under Article 81(1)4 of the Union Act, and decided to send the case to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor's Office with an opinion of prosecution.

​2. Our argument and role

​We argued that unfair labor practices of domination and intervention did not exist against the suspect since the suspect had never interfered with trade union activities or had acted similarly ever, and even if it was assumed that the domestic suspect had made such statements as set forth in the description of the crime, they were within the employer's freedom of expression.

We obtained an acquittal from the prosecution by thoroughly analyzing legal principles and precedents related to unfair labor practices such as domination and intervention, and actively asserting and proving the suspect’s conduct of work in the company, his status and authority in the company, his attitude toward the trade union, and statements of employees working with him in the department.

​The decision is meaningful in that it confirms that, even if an employer expresses somewhat negative opinions about a labor union, if the remarks are not associated with elements that could impair independence of the labor union, such as a threat to give disadvantages or a circumstance of domination or intervention, the remarks are within the scope of the employer’s freedom of expression.

□ Attorneys in charge: Jung Sang-Tae and Jeong Eun-Ha
□ labor attorney in charge: Kim Rin