[E-Daily Reporter Choi Oh-hyun ] A labor-management agreement regarding special performance bonuses at SamsungElectronics’ Device Solutions (DS) division came under scrutiny during a parliamentary audit. Given that the Ministry of Employment and Labor has issued guidelines stating that performance bonuses linked to corporate profits cannot be the subject of labor disputes, some have argued that the validity of the existing agreement must be re-examined. In response, Choi Seung-ho, chairman of the Samsung Group Inter-Company Labor Union’s Samsung Electronics Branch, stated, “This was an agreement reached autonomously between labor and management,” indicating that the validity of the agreement is a matter for labor and management to decide and that the existing agreement remains valid.

On the 6th, the National Assembly’s Committee on Trade, Industry, Energy, SMEs, and Startups conducted a parliamentary audit of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul. Chairman Choi appeared as the sole general witness that day. Lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties spoke with one voice, arguing that the SamsungElectronics labor union should not expand the scope of collective bargaining to include management decisions—such as the scale of performance bonus funds and investment decisions—which fall within the realm of management discretion.

Rep. Woo Jae-jun of the People Power Party pointed out that SamsungElectronics would need approval from a shareholders’ meeting to pay the special management performance bonus for the DS division—agreed upon with the union last May—in the form of company stock. In response, Chairman Choi said, “Union members are already aware that a shareholders’ meeting is required.” When asked whether the union would accept the rejection of the agreement at the shareholders’ meeting—given recent guidelines from the Ministry of Employment and Labor stating that “performance bonuses cannot be considered a subject of labor disputes”—Chairman Choi avoided a direct answer, stating, “It is difficult to comment on matters that have not yet been finalized.” Furthermore, in response to Rep. Woo’s question asking, “Was the strike used as a bargaining chip?” Chairman Choi replied, “We did not conduct negotiations on the premise of a strike.”

Both the ruling and opposition parties raised concerns regarding the scope of the union’s negotiations surrounding performance-based bonuses. When Rep. Woo asked for his position on the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines, Chairman Choi replied, “I am aware of the guidelines,” but added, “The distribution of corporate profits is a matter that labor and management can fully discuss during negotiations.”

Rep. Park Hee-seung of the Democratic Party of Korea also questioned the distinction between the scale of performance-based bonus funds and the criteria for their distribution. When Rep. Park asked, “Isn’t determining the scale of performance-based bonus funds a matter for management?” Chairman Choi replied, “A company’s performance is achieved jointly by the company and its workers,” adding, “I believe this is a matter for labor and management to discuss together.”

Rep. Jang Cheol-min of the Democratic Party emphasized the need to distinguish between “matters open to negotiation” and “mandatory negotiation items” that could actually lead to labor disputes. Rep. Jang explained that while management and labor can exchange views on matters such as investment locations or the scale of production lines, these are not subject to mandatory bargaining; however, issues that directly affect working conditions—such as job reassignments or relocation assistance—can be subject to mandatory bargaining. He continued, “Just because something is negotiable doesn’t mean it can lead to a strike,” urging labor unions to clearly distinguish between the two areas.

However, Rep. Kim Do-eup of the People Power Party criticized the Democratic Party for “self-contradiction.” He pointed out that the “Yellow Envelope Act,” which the Democratic Party spearheaded, created a loophole allowing even business management decisions to become subjects of labor disputes.

During the parliamentary audit that day, allegations of personal misconduct surrounding Chairman Choi’s management of the union also came under scrutiny. Rep. Jeong Jin-wook of the Democratic Party of Korea questioned allegations that Chairman Choi had signed a contract worth hundreds of millions of won for rally supplies with a company headed by his father-in-law, as well as the private use of points and mileage earned from credit card payments for union business expenses. Chairman Choi responded to the allegations by stating, “These matters are currently under investigation,” and added, “Going forward, we will properly establish standards and procedures for internal union operations.”

The Nowon Police Station in Seoul launched an investigation that day by interviewing the complainant regarding a case filed alleging breach of trust and obstruction of business in connection with the contract involving Chairman Choi’s father-in-law’s company. Chairman Choi had previously acknowledged that his father-in-law is the CEO of the company but maintained that the contract was not preferential, explaining that the decision was made after comparing contract terms such as price and delivery schedules.

Both the ruling and opposition parties raised the question of whether the achievements of the DS division could be attributed solely to the workers in that division. Lawmakers pointed out that the DX division had propped up the company’s overall performance during the semiconductor downturn and that support from partner companies as well as government assistance with taxes, electricity, and water had also contributed to the current semiconductor performance.

In response, Chairman Choi stated, “Performance bonuses are paid when results are achieved, so they are slightly different from wages and base pay,” but added, “I will keep your comments in mind and strive to do better in the 2027 negotiations.”

Conflict within the SamsungElectronics labor union also continued outside the National Assembly. The “Donghaeng” union, centered on the DX division, held a one-person protest in front of the National Assembly that day. The Donghaeng union claims that the DX division’s voice was not sufficiently reflected in this year’s wage negotiations and is demanding joint DS-DX negotiations next year.

The Honam semiconductor cluster also became a major point of contention during the parliamentary audits held that day by the Committee on Trade, Industry, and Energy and the Committee on Climate, Energy, Environment, and Labor. Minister of Trade, Industry, and Energy Kim Jeong-gwan stated regarding the site selection, “The government made the proposal, but the final decision was made by the companies.” Minister of Climate, Energy, and Environment Kim Seong-hwan also stated that the government can supply the 6.3 GW of electricity and 650,000 metric tons of water per day required for the Honam semiconductor industrial complex.

Initially, the People Power Party had requested that SamsungElectronics Chairman Jay Y. Lee and SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won be summoned as witnesses to the parliamentary audit to question them about the decision-making process behind the Honam semiconductor investment, but neither was included on the witness list for that day.