[비즈한국] The conflict between CU franchise owners and the Cargo Truckers Solidarity union, sparked by the union's strike last April, appears to be prolonging. Although the strike concluded after lasting about a month, CU franchise owners are continuing their legal response, insisting that the union must be held accountable for the related damages. Recently, the owners have been ramping up their legal efforts by participating in the drafting of a petition calling for a thorough investigation and strict punishment of Cargo Truckers Solidarity officials.
Preparing for Civil Litigation Following Criminal Complaints… Deepening Conflict
Recently, the CU Franchise Owners Council has been collecting petitions from store owners. This is to urge a rigorous investigation and punishment regarding the criminal complaints filed with the police concerning damages suffered by owners during the strike by the Cargo Truckers Solidarity branch of the Korean Public Service and Transport Workers' Union (under the KCTU) in April.
On May 19, the CU Franchise Owners Council filed complaints against the leadership and members of the Cargo Truckers Solidarity with the Naju and Jinju police stations on charges including special destruction of property and obstruction of business. The Naju Police Station reportedly referred the case to the prosecution after determining that the charges were substantiated. The complaint filed with the Jinju Police Station is currently under investigation.
A council official stated, “During the investigation, the Cargo Truckers Solidarity showed a tendency to shift responsibility rather than admit fault. We are currently receiving petitions from CU owners demanding strict punishment for the illegal acts committed by the union members,” adding, “Approximately 500 owners have submitted petitions so far.”
The conflict between CU franchise owners and the Cargo Truckers Solidarity began last April. Demanding an increase in transport fees and improvements in working conditions, the union blocked major BGF Logistics centers and went on strike starting April 5. In the process, the entry to logistics centers and product deliveries were disrupted, causing a significant number of CU stores to fail to receive items such as lunch boxes, triangle kimbap, and beverages on time. Franchise owners lamented that the prolonged disruption in supply led to losses including decreased sales and customer attrition.
Although the strike ended on April 29 when BGF Logistics and the Cargo Truckers Solidarity reached an agreement, on-site friction between franchise owners and unionized drivers persisted for some time. Some store owners refused deliveries from drivers belonging to the Cargo Truckers Solidarity who had participated in the strike.
The BGF Retail headquarters attempted to settle the situation by providing compensation. Support funds and consolation money were paid to franchise stores considering the scale of damage caused by supply disruptions, but some owners argued that the payments fell short of the actual losses incurred.
The council side remarked, “Compensation ranging from 150,000 won to a maximum of 7 million won was paid based on store-specific damages, but this is only a fraction of the total losses,” adding, “The owners believe the Cargo Truckers Solidarity should take responsibility for the remaining damages that were not covered.”
In addition to the criminal complaints, the council is also preparing a damages suit against the Cargo Truckers Solidarity. As of now, about 300 franchise owners have expressed their intent to participate in the lawsuit. A council official said, “We are currently receiving powers of attorney from store owners who wish to join the lawsuit,” adding, “We plan to calculate the specific amount of damages after consolidating the losses per store. The total estimated claim is around 14 billion won.”
Diverging Views Among Owners, Union, and Headquarters Regarding Liability and Prevention
As franchise owners continue their legal action even after the strike, the conflict shows signs of becoming long-term. In particular, the stances of the franchise owners, the Cargo Truckers Solidarity, and the BGF Retail headquarters remain divided on the issues of responsibility for damages and measures to prevent recurrence.
The franchise owners are demanding an apology and responsible action from the Cargo Truckers Solidarity. A council official asserted, “The Cargo Truckers Solidarity has not apologized to the owners regarding this strike. If there had been at least a minimal apology and a promise to prevent recurrence, the owners would have been willing to make concessions regarding lawsuits or complaints,” adding, “The Cargo Truckers Solidarity has instead shown an attitude suggesting they might go on strike again if the issue continues to be raised, which is increasing the owners' concerns.”
On the other hand, the Cargo Truckers Solidarity countered that the Franchise Owners Council’s damages suit and legal response are measures that escalate the conflict and shift blame onto cargo workers. They hold the position that BGF Retail headquarters should actively step in to mediate between the store owners and the cargo workers to resolve the conflict.
The Cargo Truckers Solidarity stated, “The company (BGF Retail) should make active efforts to bridge the gap and resolve the situation between the owners and the cargo workers,” adding, “The Cargo Truckers Solidarity does not desire conflict between the 'underdogs'—the convenience store owners and the cargo workers—and will continue to urge the company to fulfill its social responsibility to resolve and heal this conflict.”
BGF Retail’s position is that support related to strike damages has already been concluded. A BGF Retail official said, “I am aware that franchise owners are taking individual legal action, but I do not know the specific details,” adding, “The headquarters prepared and paid out compensation related to the strike, and we are not currently reviewing any additional measures to prevent recurrence.”