1.

Background and Key Issue

This matter arose from an application to separate principal and subcontractor bargaining units filed immediately after the amended TULRAA took effect on March 10, 2026, making it the first such case under the amended statute. Another subcontractor union had already served a collective bargaining demand on the Company when subcontractor unions affiliated with a different umbrella organization each filed their own applications to separate the bargaining units, in each case within days of the amendment taking effect. The Gyeongbuk Regional LRC granted those applications, and in June 2026, the NLRC issued a decision upholding the regional determination. The Company then filed an administrative action seeking revocation of the NLRC decision, together with an application to suspend its effect.

The central issue was whether the bargaining unit separation decision would cause “irreparable harm.” We began from the premise that, so long as the review decision remained in effect, the Company would have to enter separate bargaining processes for each unit before any court had ruled on whether it was an employer at all or whether separation was warranted, and would risk criminal liability if it refused. Building on that premise, we quantified the resulting harm, highlighting concrete figures associated with the sharp rise in bargaining costs and the operational strain that multiple parallel bargaining units would bring. We further emphasized that, given the nature of collective labor relations, once bargaining is under way and a labor relations framework has formed, the parties cannot be restored to their former positions even if the Company ultimately prevails on the merits. Finally, we emphasized that with no case law yet established on employer status or the necessity of bargaining unit separation under the amended TULRAA, labor relations should not be shaped in advance on the strength of LRC decisions alone, particularly where those decisions have reached inconsistent results.
 

2.

The Decision

The Seoul Administrative Court found an urgent need to suspend the effect of the NLRC decision in order to prevent irreparable harm to the Company, and found no basis to conclude that such suspension would materially harm the public welfare. The Court accordingly suspended the effect of the decision until 60 days after the date of the first instance judgment on the merits.
 

3.

Implications

The Decision establishes that where a company substantiates the requirements for suspension, in particular irreparable harm and urgent necessity, a court may suspend the effect of an LRC decision concerning principal-subcontractor bargaining under the amended TULRAA even before judgment on the merits. That said, the Decision is only a provisional ruling on suspension, and thus the outcome of the case on the merits will bear close monitoring.

For companies that have received a comparable bargaining unit separation decision, or a determination recognizing employer status under the amended TULRAA, an application for suspension filed at the time a union’s bargaining demand becomes concrete may prove a practical and effective response. Given how long a judgment on the merits can take, suspension is the only way to keep a contested legal position from becoming entrenched, in practice, as an established labor-management relationship. Companies should therefore begin assembling the evidence needed to substantiate their anticipated damages/harm in concrete terms, including bargaining costs, management impact, and the course of bargaining to date, as early as the LRC stage. The Decision illustrates that with thorough preparation, provisional judicial protection remains available even amid the uncertainty of the amended TULRAA’s early implementation, and it offers a useful reference point for companies facing similar disputes.