The Supreme Court has overturned a second-instance ruling that had determined CJ Logistics' refusal to engage in collective bargaining with delivery workers in 2020 constituted an unfair labor practice.

This decision follows a precedent set by the Supreme Court en banc last May, which established that for cases occurring before the implementation of the Yellow Envelope Act, prime contractors do not bear the obligation to engage in collective bargaining with the unions of subcontractors.

The Third Division of the Supreme Court ruled today (July 9) to overturn the original verdict against the plaintiff in the appeal filed by CJ Logistics against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The court stated, "As no explicit or implicit employment relationship can be recognized between the plaintiff and the delivery workers at the agencies, it is difficult to view the plaintiff as an employer bearing the duty of collective bargaining under the former Trade Union Act with respect to the delivery workers at the agencies."

The Korea Parcel Delivery Workers' Union requested collective bargaining with CJ Logistics in March 2020, but after being refused, they filed for relief with the Regional Labor Relations Commission.

While the Regional Labor Relations Commission initially ruled in favor of CJ Logistics, the National Labor Relations Commission overturned this in a re-examination, determining that the refusal was indeed an unfair labor practice.

CJ Logistics, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an administrative lawsuit in July 2021; however, both the first and second courts ruled that CJ Logistics had a duty to bargain as an employer.

The Seoul Administrative Court, which handled the first trial in January 2023, ruled that CJ Logistics should be considered an employer as it was in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine working conditions. The Seoul High Court reached the same conclusion in its second-instance ruling in January 2024.

However, in May of this year, the Supreme Court en banc ruled in the HD Hyundai Heavy Industries case that the status of a prime contractor as an employer regarding collective bargaining is not recognized in cases where the former Trade Union Act applies.

At the time, the Supreme Court explained that it was inappropriate to change existing legal principles to attempt to apply legal principles similar to the revised Trade Union Act.

Today, the Supreme Court applied this same legal principle to the CJ Logistics case, overturning the original ruling that had recognized the duty to engage in collective bargaining and remanding the case.

A Supreme Court official stated, "In accordance with the legal principles of the en banc ruling, the court ruled that it is difficult to view the plaintiff as an employer bearing the duty of collective bargaining under the former Trade Union Act toward delivery workers at agencies with whom there is no employment contract."

(Photo: Yonhap News)