By Lee Kyung-min
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week upholding the legality of layoffs made by Ssangyong Motors in 2009 is drawing protests not only from unionists, human rights lawyers, civic groups and even politicians.
The union at the automaker vowed to conduct an “indefinite fight” until 153 laid-off workers return to the company.
“We will fight until we can work together with the 153 workers,” said Kim Deuk-jung, head of the Ssangyong Metal Union. “Unless the management comes up with any plan for their reinstatement by the end of this month, we will take stern action.”
“We believe that the judges took political considerations in order to protect management, instead of trying to protect weak and underprivileged workers. It’s deplorable,” the union stated in a press release.
On Nov. 13, the nation’s highest court overturned a previous ruling by Seoul High Court that nullified the layoffs, and then sent the case back to the court for reconsideration.
Alongside the union members, a number of civic groups also say that the ruling “turned a blind eye to those who are disadvantaged.”
Activist lawyers who belong to the Seoul Bar Association (SBA) and the civic group People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy Monday criticized it.
“The Ssangyong layoffs have cost 25 lives, all of them are the fired workers or their families who are virtually at the lowest income bracket in the society,” said lawyer Oh Young-jung. A series of suicides among those who lost their jobs occurred in the years that followed.
“The management-workers relations are important because it shows the level of social trust, and this ruling further deepens the rift between the two. The role of the court is to bridge the social gap and strengthen the social bond among members of society, which the Supreme Court’s decision runs entirely counter to.”
Rep. Park Jie-won from the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD) also said, “The Supreme Court should only rule on whether the appeals court applied the right legal references. The Supreme Court judge should not have made interpretations on other findings of the appeal court.”