Notice of strict response to weekend access failure
“Look at it like a business”… Application of the Fair Trade Act
You may face criminal penalties for collusion
The Fair Trade Commission announced on the 4th that it will seek another on-site investigation on the 5th of the Public Transport Workers’ Cargo Unity Headquarters of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which went on a general strike. On the 2nd, the first investigation targeting the cargo union headquarters in Gangseo-gu, Seoul and the cargo union’s Busan regional headquarters in Nam-gu, was canceled when FTC investigators failed to enter the building because union members had block it. This time, we intend to respond without any obstacles by asking for the cooperation of the police in the investigation. The FTC is also reviewing a plan to apply charges of interfering with the investigation if the KFTC stops the FTC investigation again. Article 124 of the Fair Trade Act states that those who refuse, obstruct or avoid an investigation by deliberately blocking or delaying access to a site will be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 200 million is won.
The main charge that the Fair Trading Commission applied to the cargo union was ‘unfair collusion’, that is collusion. The Fair Trading Commission said the cargo union had blocked transport by forcing its operators to join the strike, which is a form of ‘strike collusion’. If the charges are proven, the Fair Trading Commission can issue disposals such as fines and prosecution. According to the Fair Trade Commission’s unfair conduct screening standards, agreements between business operators include not only specific agreements such as contracts, agreements, agreements, decisions, memoranda of understanding, and agreements, but also implicit and implied agreements. Even if there is no direct evidence, if it is likely that the joint action was made under the circumstances, it is considered an agreement. In other words, if circumstances reveal that the general strike of the cargo union was carried out by force, union representatives could be subject to administrative sanctions or criminal punishment for violating the provisions prohibited by business groups, including the charges of collusion under the Fair Trading Act. Act. At a briefing on the 2nd, Fair Trade Commission Chairman Han Ki-jeong said, “There is concern that internal data related to the deal may be destroyed.”
However, the Cargo Workers Union continued to reject the FTC’s on-site investigation, saying, “The union cannot be considered a business organization, and all members of the Cargo Workers Union are individual lenders and not business owners, so the provision Prohibited acts by business groups, such as collective unfair acts, cannot be applied.” showing movement. This is because it is a ‘union’ level strike, not an individual lorry owner running a business.
Based on the Fair Trading Act, which defines a business association as “an association or association organized by two or more business operators for the purpose of promoting common interests, regardless of their form,” one chairman said, “The Fair Trade Commission handling truck. owners who belong to a cargo union as a business operator We criticize,” he said. An official from the Fair Trade Commission explained, “Regardless of whether a business registration certificate exists or not, it is considered a business even if it has the characteristics of a business.”
Reporter Sejong Lee Young-joon
.jpg?fit=300%2C300&ssl=1)
