Samsung Biologics Internal Data Leak Report

On November 6, 2025, an incident occurred inside Samsung Biologics’ internal network, where a shared folder belonging to the HR Team was accidentally made accessible to all company employees.
This folder contained the personal information of approximately 5,000 executives and staff, including resident registration numbers, home addresses, annual salaries, performance evaluations, and promotion data, as well as various internal documents used for employee management.

According to the labor union, the company discovered the access-permission error belatedly during a system-upgrade operation and corrected it only after the fact, by which time a large amount of internal data had already been exposed within the company.
The union immediately demanded that the company take steps to prevent a recurrence and disclose the details of the incident, but management’s response focused not on solving the problem but on suppressing the union.

In fact, the company cut off the network connection to the union office and even attempted to forcibly retrieve the union’s laptops.
A union official stated, “The company, citing the excuse of protecting personal information, tried to forcibly open the union office and seize the laptops, but the attempt failed.”

During this process, the company instead shifted blame onto certain employees who had viewed the materials, claiming their actions might constitute violations of the Personal Information Protection Act.
The union criticized this approach, saying, “The company has failed to take responsibility for the leak and is instead brazenly blaming the employees.”

Meanwhile, Samsung Biologics CEO John Rim issued an internal notice formally apologizing, stating,

“I sincerely apologize for the fact that non-public information of employees became accessible to individuals without authorization.”

The company claimed that no evidence of external leakage had yet been confirmed but said that, “in consideration of the possibility of external exposure,” it filed a report with the relevant authorities on November 9.

However, according to the union, immediately after the incident the company expressed its intention not to report the case to the Personal Information Protection Commission, and it was only after the union itself filed the report that official proceedings began.

The union further revealed that among the leaked files were documents showing that the company had monitored the union leadership and attempted to disadvantage certain employees.
For instance, one file showed that from November 2022 to October 2023, three union executive members were categorized under the code “NJ”, with records kept of their gym-usage frequency and rest or work hours.
According to the union, these were sensitive records suggesting surveillance and potential retaliation against union leaders.

The company countered that “some employees have shared certain materials externally and, based on arbitrary interpretations, are claiming the company tried to disadvantage specific individuals—this is not true.”

In short, the union asserts that the leak exposed not only ordinary employees’ personal data but also evidence that management had maintained files aimed at containing or monitoring union activities, while the company flatly denies any such intent.


Involvement of the Business Support TF (Task Force) in Personnel Evaluation

Among the leaked materials, one of the most crucial documents contained chat-log evidence that Samsung Group’s Business Support TF directly intervened in HR evaluations at affiliate companies.

The record is a messenger conversation between a Business Support TF member and Samsung Biologics’ HR head.
In the chat, the TF instructs the HR head to
• pay retention bonuses only to specific personnel as a means of saving labor costs, and
• assign a larger number of low-performance ratings to ordinary employees.

The HR head replies in a way suggesting agreement and execution of the order, adding that the company was concerned that disputes over wage-increase rates might lead to the formation of a majority union (a union joined by more than 50 percent of employees).

These exchanges indicate that the Business Support TF—effectively the control tower of Samsung Group—was coordinating HR operations across subsidiaries, manipulating performance evaluations and compensation systems to suppress labor-union growth while cutting labor expenses.

For example, the simultaneous mention of “boldly issuing more low-performance ratings” and worries that “a majority union may emerge due to wage-increase issues” suggests an intention to use downgraded evaluations both as a cost-control tool and as a means of deterring union expansion.

This shows that although the TF is ostensibly an ad-hoc organization, it in practice dominates the group’s HR strategy, steering each affiliate’s HR department and controlling every employee’s evaluation and reward.

The union emphasizes that such directives for assigning lower grades are closely tied to the company’s forthcoming “New HR System” discussed below.


Preferential Treatment of Labor-Management Council Representatives and Monitoring of Union Leaders

Before a majority union is officially established, many workplaces operate a Labor-Management Council (an employee-representative body) that must consent to certain labor matters.
Samsung Biologics also had such a council, called the BSB Council, and the leaked documents show the company had intentionally provided favorable treatment to its members.

An Excel management file among the leaked materials included data showing that BSB Council members were listed as promotion candidates and systematically given higher evaluation grades.
In other words, the company bestowed preferential performance scores upon employee representatives to ensure the council’s cooperation and maintain a pro-management stance.

Such conduct could constitute a violation of labor law prohibiting employers from unlawfully supporting or favoring employee representatives, as it undermines their independence.

Even more serious, the same management file contained the “NJ List”—a roster of current union executives.
“NJ” was the internal code for union leaders, with their names, personal information, and performance-evaluation status all documented.

This shows that the Business Support TF and the HR department had been tracking and managing union officials separately, implying potential discriminatory or retaliatory practices.

Through such “blacklists,” the company could easily assign poor ratings to union leaders or attempt to coerce them, thereby obstructing lawful union activity—a violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

The union regards these findings as extremely serious evidence and is considering additional disclosures and legal action.


Classification of Low Performers and Inducement of Voluntary Resignation

Another leaked document revealed detailed plans for managing and pushing out low-performing employees.

According to this document, employees receiving the grade “GD (Da)”, which denotes a low performance rating, were pre-designated to exceed 60 percent of staff—an alarming indication that low scores were allocated in advance, regardless of actual results.

The file instructed that about 65 percent of employees be maintained in the “average” range, balancing morale while controlling the distribution of top and bottom ratings.

It further detailed that employees given low ratings would be targeted for “voluntary-resignation inducement.”

The program even contained explicit calculations of labor-cost reductions achieved by assigning low grades, illustrating that the company viewed employees not as assets for growth but as targets for cost-cutting and restructuring.

Although management publicly stated that “low-grade assignments are at each department’s discretion,” in reality this was a group-wide directive to systematically expand the pool of low performers.

The union compared this practice to those previously seen at SK Hynix and other firms, where performance evaluations were used as a pretext for pressuring employees to quit.

The document also indicated that while the current lowest-grade (NI) ratio was under 1 percent, the company planned gradual expansion.
Indeed, from 2023 to 2024 the number of lowest-rated employees increased more than four-fold, resulting, according to the document, in approximately 5.2 billion won in labor-cost savings.
It declared the company’s intention to continue increasing low-rating ratios to further reduce payroll expenses.

In essence, Samsung was conducting regular selection and pressure of “underperformers” as a structural mechanism for workforce reduction—precisely as the union claims.

Preferential Performance Ratings for People Team and Management Audit Team

Among the leaked materials exposing unfair evaluation practices, one table contained the distribution of performance grades by department. The figures showed that, contrary to expectation, employees in support divisions (administrative departments such as HR or auditing) received far higher ratings than those in production or technical roles.

For instance, as of 2024:
• In most departments, the proportion of “high performance” ratings was around 35%.
• However, in the People Team (HR Department), that figure was roughly 10 percentage points higher than the company average.
• Most strikingly, within the Management Audit Team, every single member received a top-tier rating—100% of its personnel were evaluated in the two highest categories.

Specifically, according to the table, the People Team’s members were rated EX (Excellent) at 58.3% and VG (Very Good) at 41.7%, meaning every team member received one of the two highest grades. The Management Audit Team reflected exactly the same ratio—EX 58.3%, VG 41.7%.

This was despite the company’s overall reduction in high-grade ratios between 2023 and 2024 (and a simultaneous rise in low-grade recipients from 0.2% to 0.6%). Thus, while production and R&D teams faced tougher grading, the management divisions enjoyed extraordinary preferential treatment.

The union asserts this pattern demonstrates a systemic bias favoring those departments responsible for personnel control and internal surveillance, especially units engaged in labor relations and auditing. It further suspects the same practice occurs across the Samsung Group, including at Samsung Electronics’ headquarters, where labor-management personnel may likewise receive guaranteed top ratings.

To verify this, the union announced plans to formally request disclosure of each affiliate’s departmental performance-grade distributions over the past three years. If the data confirm that labor-management or HR-related units consistently receive top marks, the union argues, it will constitute proof of discriminatory compensation favoring management-aligned staff and therefore evidence of unfair labor practices under Korean labor law.


The New HR System for Labor-Cost Reduction

Samsung Group’s so-called “New HR System”, introduced in 2015 as a reform initiative, publicly claimed to replace the seniority-based wage and rank system with one centered on “roles and performance.” It was marketed as an innovation promoting meritocracy and flattening hierarchy.

However, the leaked Samsung Biologics documents reveal that the true underlying purpose of the new system was to suppress wage growth and reduce total labor costs.

One internal analysis compared the projected 2025 payroll cost under two scenarios—keeping the old system versus implementing the new one. The findings were explicit:
• Without reform, total payroll in 2025 would reach approximately 1.75 trillion KRW.
• Under the new system, it could be contained at around 1.43 trillion KRW, an 18% cost reduction.

The document further estimated that under the original scheme, the basic-salary ratio would rise from 21% (in 2015) to 59% (in 2025). Yet with the “reformed” system, this increase could be held down to around 19%, effectively suppressing base-pay growth.

In other words, the so-called reform—presented as promoting “job- and performance-based culture”—was in practice designed to simplify ranks, curb promotions, and limit salary inflation.

In consequence, after rank consolidation:
• Salary increases tied to promotion became smaller;
• Compensation shifted toward variable bonuses rather than stable base pay;
• Long-serving employees saw their wage progression slow sharply;
• Younger employees’ pay was capped at lower relative levels.

For management, the results were positive: lower fixed payroll obligations and more flexibility in manpower control. For employees, it meant reduced long-term income and intensified competition for limited high-performance grades.

The union concluded that, behind the rhetoric of “rewarding ability,” the real intent of the new HR system was simply cost-cutting.


Manipulation Potential in EVA-Based Incentive System

Samsung Group’s group-wide performance-bonus scheme, known as the Overall Performance Incentive (OPI), is officially calculated using the EVA (Economic Value Added) model, with the formula:

EVA = (Net Operating Profit After Taxes – Cost of Capital) × 20%

However, the leaked Samsung Biologics documents indicate that the company could manipulate the cost-of-capital figure to control final incentive payouts at will.

A 2025 OPI planning file, dated April 2025, revealed that the company had already drawn up a capital-operation plan for that year’s performance bonuses. The document explicitly stated that the cost of capital could be increased or decreased at management’s discretion, allowing EVA results—and therefore the available bonus pool—to be flexibly adjusted.

For instance, if there were no major competitors that year, the company could artificially lower EVA (by raising the cost-of-capital factor), thereby reducing performance payouts. Conversely, when competition was intense, EVA could be inflated to maintain morale.

The union pointed out a real-world example: Samsung Electronics’ decision in September 2025 to increase construction spending by 1.4 trillion KRW. Such large investments, when reflected in EVA calculations, could conveniently lower the EVA-based bonus resource for that year, effectively giving management a tool to arbitrarily expand or shrink performance pay.

Although the company officially maintains that EVA “best reflects value creation,” the union argues that its true appeal lies in its malleability—it allows management to adjust or manipulate the numbers as needed.

The union condemned the system as a “fraudulent mechanism that lets the company reduce bonuses whenever it wishes.”


Allegations of Discriminatory Management of Mental-Health Center Users

Samsung and its affiliates operate internal “Mental Health Centers” or counseling rooms, ostensibly designed to support employees dealing with stress or psychological difficulties.

However, the leaked documents revealed that counseling records of employees who used these centers were being separately managed by the People Team (HR)—and even stored within folders labeled “Disciplinary”.

This raises suspicions that the company was using the mental-health program not for welfare but as a tool for monitoring and identifying employees for potential dismissal.

The leaked files contained counselor reports and center director’s opinions, indicating that HR had direct access to confidential mental-health information. The union asserted that such records could be exploited to flag “problematic employees” and manage them as potential termination targets.

Within Samsung Electronics, rumors had long circulated:

“If you visit the counseling center twice, you’ll be forced to resign.”

Interviews conducted by the union with former SK Hynix employees who had previously worked at Samsung provided corroboration: one employee reported that after returning from sick leave following counseling, HR explicitly told them,

“If it happens a second time, you should consider resigning.”

Based on these parallels, the union believes Samsung Biologics and Samsung Electronics share identical practices, treating those who seek psychological help as “managed individuals” subject to disadvantage or removal.

If proven, this would represent a grave misuse of personal health data and a violation of both the Personal Information Protection Act and labor laws.

The union announced plans to submit the evidence to the Personal Information Protection Commission and the Ministry of Employment and Labor, demanding investigation and corrective action.


Aftermath of the Leak and Union’s Position

The revelations emerging from the internal data leak have caused shockwaves across Samsung Group.

For years, employees had whispered rumors:
• “People Team employees always get higher ratings.”
• “If you’re flagged in peer review, you’re on the low-performer list.”
• “Union leaders get discriminated in promotions.”
• “If you go to the mental-health center, you’re on the exit list.”

Now, these rumors appear largely validated.

According to the union, the documents prove that the entire Samsung Group has been centrally controlled under the Business Support TF, with HR systems engineered for managerial advantage.

From the “New HR System” designed to suppress wages, to EVA-based incentives allowing discretionary bonus manipulation, the company had structured every HR and compensation mechanism to serve cost-saving and control objectives.

The documents further show that even labor-management council representatives were selectively rewarded with high ratings to ensure cooperation—revealing a deliberate strategy to neutralize employee representation.



Corporate Response and Organizational Changes

The day after the union’s exposé (November 7), Samsung announced a sudden and symbolic personnel and structural change:
• Vice Chairman Jung Hyun-ho, long regarded as “Lee Jae-yong’s No.2,” stepped down as head of the Business Support TF, moving to a role as advisor to Chairman Lee.
• The TF, previously a temporary task force, was converted into a permanent division—the “Business Support Office.”

While the company described this as a move for “organizational stabilization,” the union saw it as a scapegoat maneuver—cutting off the tail to save the head.

In practice, the union suspects that despite the title change, Jung will continue to wield influence behind the scenes, and the control-tower function will persist under a new name.

Simultaneously, Samsung Electronics and other affiliates began tightening internal information controls, disabling features like internal email downloads to prevent future leaks.

The union criticized these measures as:

“Focusing solely on blocking leaks rather than addressing the exposed issues themselves.”

It also noted the company’s efforts to minimize media coverage—major newspapers gave only brief mentions, and business outlets treated the story as minor. The union has thus turned to alternative media platforms, such as YouTube, to publicize the issue.


Group-Wide Labor Solidarity and Union Outlook

Unions across Samsung Group—including the Samsung Electronics Union—have declared that they regard this scandal with utmost seriousness and are preparing joint countermeasures.

In a statement, the unions said:

“Samsung companies will never protect employees. The moment they can, they will find a way to push people out. Only the union stands on the side of workers against unjust treatment.”

They emphasized that only a majority union, empowered by law, can correct the entrenched injustices in Samsung’s HR practices.

At Samsung Biologics, a majority union is already active, and the union called on employees at Samsung Electronics and other affiliates to join in unionizing efforts to secure majority representation.

“This leak has made the internal problems of Samsung visible to all.
Now is the time for collective strength to correct these unfair practices,” the union declared.

The union concluded that this incident revealed systemic HR corruption across Samsung Group and vowed to mobilize united worker action to reform its personnel practices once and for all.