The Constitutional Court has ruled that a provision in the teacher union law prohibiting political activities by labor unions composed of university professors and staff is unconstitutional.
On July 23, the court announced its decision in a constitutional review of Article 3 of the teacher union law, with a 7-2 majority finding it violates the constitution.
The National Professors' Union, the Korean Private University Professors' Union, and the A University Professors' Union filed a constitutional complaint in August and September 2020, arguing that the application of Article 3, which bans political activities, infringes on their freedom of political expression, freedom of assembly, general freedom of action, and equality rights, following the amendment of Article 2 of the teacher union law.
Article 3 states, "No teacher union shall engage in any political activities." Article 2 was amended on June 9, 2020, to include professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and staff in the definition of teachers under the law.
The court stated, "The provision in question treats university faculty unions unfairly compared to university faculty groups, lecturer groups, and general unions without reasonable justification, thus infringing on the claimants' equality rights."
It further noted, "Individual university faculty members are already permitted to engage in strong forms of political activities such as joining political parties, running for office, and campaigning, and there is no separate comprehensive prohibition on university faculty groups formed by the same individuals. Therefore, it cannot be immediately concluded that the mere fact of forming a collective of the same university faculty members increases the risk to the political neutrality of education, nor can it be justified that a stronger ban on political activities is warranted simply because the collective is a union rather than a general organization."
The court also explained, "General unions are fundamentally organizations that aim to maintain and improve working conditions and enhance the economic and social status of workers, and the law only denies union status in cases where the primary purpose is political activism, not prohibiting political activities from the outset."
It emphasized, "The issue at hand concerns university faculty unions, not primary and secondary school teacher unions. University faculty educate adult students and conduct academic research as their essential duties, and the legal framework allows for political party membership and campaigning, unlike primary and secondary school teachers."
However, Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Cho Han-chang expressed a dissenting opinion, stating, "The differences in purpose, nature, authority, and political and social influence between university faculty groups and university faculty unions mean that treating them differently under the provision in question cannot be deemed unreasonable discrimination."
They added, "University faculty unions, established under the teacher union law to guarantee the rights to solidarity and collective bargaining for university faculty, generally possess much stronger cohesion and organizational power than university faculty groups. Therefore, allowing unrestricted political activities for university faculty unions could have a significantly greater and more serious impact on universities and society than for university faculty groups."
They further noted, "Given the differences in the roles and statuses of university faculty unions compared to general unions, university faculty unions may be subject to more restrictions on political activities considering their unique position as educators and researchers in universities."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.