Samsung BioLogics Union Effectively Expands Scope of "Ongoing Management Intervention"

Union Delivers 18 Core Demands

Legal Stance Softened from "Agreement" to "Consultation"

But Real Scope for Management Involvement Widens

While Samsung BioLogics labor and management have been holding negotiations for several months regarding wages, benefits, and other terms, the labor union has presented a proposed agreement that appears to somewhat soften its demands related to management and personnel authority—the major sticking points in the negotiations.

However, the softened wording only lowers the tone of the language, while procedural mechanisms allowing the union to regularly intervene in overall management and personnel rights remain largely intact. In some cases, there is even greater potential for the union’s scope of involvement to expand, raising expectations of further difficulties in future talks. This approach is viewed as maintaining leverage for "management intervention," a strategy that goes beyond the normal scope of collective bargaining topics.

A labor union flag is hung at the Samsung BioLogics factory in Yeonsu District, Incheon. Yonhap News

According to industry sources on September 28, during the second round of post-adjustment negotiations held on September 22, the Samsung BioLogics union submitted 18 core issues to management, lowering the level of requests concerning management and personnel rights from the previous requirement of "joint agreement" to "consultation."

Legally, an "agreement" only takes effect when both labor and management are in full accord, whereas "consultation" means that the company retains ultimate decision-making authority as long as it sincerely listens to the union’s stance. The union decided to integrate the management and personnel-related clauses into five articles and to delete issues concerning work rules and company regulations not included in these clauses.

Reviewing the five articles proposed by the union, demands regarding organizational restructuring, personnel reassignment, voluntary retirements, overall HR systems, and workforce expansion have been notably eased. For example, the evaluation-related clauses—which previously required prior agreement with the union or granted the union virtual veto power via a labor evaluation appeals committee—have been revised so that the union instead monitors the company’s implementation of evaluation results.

The issue is that new mechanisms, such as permanently established labor-management consultative bodies, have been added throughout the proposals, in effect expanding the union’s practical scope for intervention. In the article on fulfilling promises made by the CEO, a new provision requires the regular operation of a labor-management body with equal representation. Regarding HR evaluations, while the union’s explicit demand for direct participation in reevaluations was removed, the scope of materials the company must provide—such as the number and proportion of employees rated as underperforming, and the status of evaluation adjustments—was subdivided. While the legal binding force of individual clauses has been reduced, the company is now faced with increased procedural burdens requiring ongoing justification on its part.

The industry consensus is that reaching a labor-management agreement with this proposal will not be easy. Typically, personnel management and organizational restructuring are considered exclusive management prerogatives, with unions generally restricted to notification or informational rights after the fact. This proposal, however, formalizes the regular operation of joint consultation committees and imposes a written obligation to explain decisions, which is viewed as remarkably demanding even by the standards of collective bargaining agreements in major Korean conglomerates. The union has stated that if there is no progress during the third round of post-adjustment negotiations scheduled for October 1, it will begin full-scale collective action.

Kim Moonjeong, CEO and labor attorney at Dodoom Labor Law Firm, explained, "Simply including consultation clauses in the collective agreement obligates management to respond accordingly. When combined with requirements to provide written explanations for non-acceptance and to supply evaluation adjustment data, this establishes ongoing procedural burdens across all personnel decisions. Compared to the usual demands made by unions, this level is extremely difficult for management to accept."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.