Seoul High Court holds first hearing Friday; whether key production processes such as cell culture are covered remains the central issue. A recent semiconductor ruling setting a strict "normal operations" standard could weigh heavily on the outcome. The union's defiance of the original order — which triggered a compulsory payment ruling — is expected to factor into the court's judgment.
An appeals court hearing on the Samsung Biologics labor dispute is set to open in earnest Friday, as the company challenges a lower court's partial ruling on a strike injunction. The appeal follows a court decision on April 23 that granted only a limited version of the company's request to ban industrial action.
Industry and legal observers are watching closely to see how much weight the court gives to the unique nature of biopharmaceutical production — which involves handling living cells — and whether the injunction will be expanded to cover the entire manufacturing process.
The Seoul High Court's First Civil Division in Incheon will hold the first hearing in Samsung Biologics' appeal against its union Friday afternoon, according to industry sources.
The lower court recognized the need to prevent biopharmaceutical products from degrading or spoiling, but restricted strike activity only for certain essential tasks. Of the nine processes the company had originally sought to protect, the court limited its order to three final-stage operations: concentration and buffer exchange, bulk drug substance filling, and buffer preparation and supply.
The exclusion of the "cell culture" process — the most critical stage of biopharmaceutical production — has continued to draw concern from the industry. Because the process involves living cells, it must be carried out in strict accordance with set procedures and timelines.
At an expert forum hosted by the Shareholder Action Institute on May 15, Kang Seung-hoon, a professor of biopharmaceutical engineering at Inha University, warned that interruptions or lapses in process control could result in substandard biopharmaceuticals. "Current quality control systems and analytical methods may not immediately reveal the problem," he said, "but the possibility of unexpected quality issues emerging in the future cannot be entirely ruled out."
Samsung Biologics has asked the appeals court to expand the injunction to cover all production stages, arguing that its operations run around the clock as a continuous 24-hour process that must follow strict procedures and timing throughout.
Legal experts say a recent court ruling in a separate case could prove a significant variable in the appeal. In a dispute involving Samsung Electronics, which faced its own strike threat, a court set a strict standard requiring that semiconductor facilities — which, like biopharmaceutical plants, run on a 24-hour continuous basis — be maintained at "the same level as normal operations" even during a strike.
In that case, the court found that "semiconductor manufacturing processes are designed on the premise of continuous 24-hour operation" and that "even a temporary shutdown can cause enormous damage, including yield losses and wafer destruction," ruling that maintenance work must continue normally during any strike.
The court further defined "normal operations" as maintaining the same staffing levels, operating hours, scale and duty of care as before the strike. A legal official said the Samsung Electronics ruling, handed down after the original Samsung Biologics injunction, is likely to be referenced by the appeals court. "It appears the courts are moving toward giving greater protection to a company's right to conduct its business, taking into account the severity of a strike," the official said.
The union's track record of defying the existing injunction is also expected to weigh heavily on the court's decision. The lower court had ordered the union not to instruct its members to stop work on the protected processes or distribute any guidelines to that effect.
Despite that order, the union is reported to have distributed strike guidelines telling workers in those very processes that joining the strike was lawful. The court ultimately issued a compulsory payment order requiring the union to pay the company 20 million won (approximately $13,200) for each future violation of the injunction.
The court had initially rejected the company's request for such a compulsory payment order, reasoning that the union would not risk criminal penalties by defying the injunction. But after the union and management clashed during the strike over the use of annual leave and overtime, the court reversed course and granted the request.
"The union pledged to comply with the injunction but ignored it, which ultimately led to the compulsory payment ruling," a legal official said. "With the principle of good faith broken, the court is likely to approach this case with greater caution and severity."
silverpaper@heraldcorp.com
