Samsung Biologics Faces Data Leak and Union Suppression Controversy

Samsung Biologics headquarters in Songdo, Incheon.
Samsung Biologics, a major biopharmaceutical manufacturer in South Korea, is embroiled in a labor dispute following a significant internal data leak. In early November 2025, work files containing sensitive personal and HR information of about 5,000 employees – including resident ID numbers, salaries, and performance evaluations – were accidentally left accessible to all employees on the company’s internal network . The company’s labor union alleges that these leaked files revealed evidence of unfair personnel practices and even anti-union surveillance, sparking a confrontation with management. The situation escalated when a Samsung Biologics executive allegedly forced entry into the union’s office to seize computers, leading the union to file criminal complaints against the executive for unlawful intrusion and obstruction of union activities .

Data Leak Exposes Sensitive Employee Information

On November 6, 2025, during an internal IT system upgrade, a shared folder used by the HR team was mistakenly set with open access, exposing a trove of confidential data to employees without proper authorization . Samsung Biologics’ CEO John Rim issued an apology on November 10, acknowledging that personal data of roughly 5,000 employees had been exposed internally and stating, “I sincerely apologize for the exposure of employees’ personal information to some staff members who did not have viewing authorization” . The exposed files included detailed personal information (such as national ID numbers, addresses, academic background) as well as sensitive HR records like individual salaries, past performance evaluations, and promotion lists . Upon discovering the issue on Nov. 6, Samsung Biologics says it immediately restricted access to the files to contain the leak . The company also reported the incident to relevant authorities on Nov. 9, given the possibility that some data might have been shared externally . (South Korean law requires notification of personal data breaches to the government within 72 hours.) Notably, Samsung Biologics emphasized that there was no confirmed evidence of external leakage of employee data, and that no client or trade-secret information was involved .

However, the company’s labor union discovered more than just personal data in the exposed folder. According to the Samsung Biologics Workers’ Union, the open folder also contained internal documents that raised red flags about the company’s HR policies and treatment of employees . Union representatives quickly preserved copies of these files on union computers, anticipating potential pushback . The union then alerted management to the exposure, expecting the company to address the security lapse. Instead, what followed was an unusual confrontation that has become the center of the controversy.

Union Office Intrusion and Legal Action

On November 7, 2025, a day after the data leak was reported internally, a Samsung Biologics executive (identified only by the surname Song) allegedly remote-unlocked the door of the union’s office and entered without permission, accompanied by a security team . The union claims this executive and company security personnel tried to confiscate three union office computers – presumably to retrieve or delete copies of the leaked HR documents that the union had saved . Just minutes before the intrusion, at around 10:10 a.m., the union’s office network was abruptly cut off, which the union believes was a deliberate move by the company’s IT/security team to disrupt union activities and prevent further sharing of information . The union resisted the attempted seizure of their computers, and the standoff ended without the devices being taken.

These events prompted the Samsung Biologics union to take legal action. On November 10, the union filed a formal criminal complaint with Incheon’s Yeonsu Police, accusing Executive Song of “obstruction of business” and “trespass into a locked office (special building intrusion)”, as well as unfair labor practices  . The union argues that the executive’s forced entry and attempt to grab union property constitute a clear act of union busting and illegal interference in union activities. Union branch leader Park Jae-seong noted that as many as seven company personnel (including the executive and security staff) entered the office, and indicated the union may broaden its legal action to include others involved after further investigation . The union’s police complaint also cites the network outage and computer seizure attempt as deliberate moves to hinder the union’s legitimate work, calling the incident “a blatant unfair labor practice and violation of privacy protection law” .

Leaked Documents Reveal Unfair HR Practices

Crucially, the union’s outrage is not only about the office intrusion, but also about what was contained in the leaked HR documents. They claim the exposed files provide evidence of problematic personnel management strategies, including potential anti-union measures. According to media reports and union statements, the contents of the leaked folder included:
• “Low Performer” Lists and Quota Plans: Spreadsheets identifying so-called “underperforming” employees and internal plans to increase the proportion of lowest performance evaluation ratings in the company . In other words, management documents outlined efforts to expand the number of staff who receive the lowest tier performance rankings – a practice the union fears could be used to justify layoffs or deny bonuses.
• Group Intervention in HR Evaluations: Evidence that Samsung Group’s Business Support Task Force (TF) – a central corporate office – was directly involved in Samsung Biologics’ performance evaluation process. Leaked communications suggest the group’s Business Support TF instructed Biologics managers to give harsher low performance grades to “underperformers” . This indicates that personnel policies at Samsung Biologics might have been coordinated at the conglomerate level, rather than solely by the Biologics unit, raising questions about group-wide control over affiliate HR decisions.
• Cost-Cutting Motive Behind New HR System: An internal analysis implying that a “new HR system” Samsung Biologics implemented in 2016 (publicly promoted as creating a more horizontal, job-role-based organization) was in reality aimed at reducing labor costs – for instance, by abolishing seniority-based pay and consolidating job grades . The leaked document suggests the reform, billed as fostering a flatter culture, actually served to cut expenses, which aligns with union criticisms that Samsung’s performance-centric evaluations are used to curb wages and benefits.
• “Union Management” List and Possible Blacklisting: Perhaps most alarming to the union, some files appear to detail monitoring of union leaders and members. The union describes an “NJ list” (presumably Nojo, meaning union list) that enumerates union committee members or active unionists, alongside notes that could be used to give them negative evaluations or other disadvantages, or conversely to attempt inducements for them to refrain from union activity . Such tracking of union affiliation for punitive or coercive purposes would constitute an illegal unfair labor practice under Korean labor law. This suggests that even after Samsung’s high-profile pledge to end union-busting (discussed later), some form of union surveillance system might have persisted internally.
• Mental Health Counseling Records in “Discipline” Folder: In a disturbing revelation, employees who visited the company’s in-house mental health counseling center (often called a “mindfulness” or “life coaching” center) were found to have their names recorded in a “disciplinary measures” folder . The implication is that workers seeking mental health support were flagged, as if their counseling usage were a blemish. The Samsung Biologics union claims this shows a mindset of penalizing those who use wellness services – effectively stigmatizing mental health issues and potentially targeting those individuals for unfavorable treatment . Labor advocates point out that such practice, if true, is deeply problematic and could violate privacy as well as employment law if those records were used to disadvantage employees.

The union insists that these documents demonstrate a pattern of anti-worker and anti-union behavior within Samsung Biologics’ management. A union spokesperson said the leaked materials show the company was “not only engaging in personnel management to cut costs, but also surveilling union officials and even tracking employees’ counseling records to possibly push them out” . This has escalated the incident from a mere data security lapse to a broader labor rights issue. The union has characterized management’s rush to retrieve the files (by raiding the union office) as an attempt to cover up these incriminating documents , rather than a legitimate data protection measure.

Group-wide Union Alliance Reacts

The controversy at Samsung Biologics has reverberated across the Samsung conglomerate’s labor organizations. Samsung Biologics’ union is part of the Samsung Group’s “super company” union alliance – a coalition uniting the unions of Samsung Electronics, Samsung Display, Samsung Life Insurance, and Samsung Biologics. This cross-affiliate union group, which collectively represents approximately 54,000 Samsung employees, has taken up the issue .

On November 10, the Samsung Electronics union (a key member of the coalition) publicly released some excerpts of the leaked Samsung Biologics documents to spotlight the seriousness of the allegations . Among the snippets they shared were the notes about “concerns over a majority union” (indicating management’s fear of the union gaining more than 50% membership at Biologics), the existence of a “union management list,” and the mental health center visitor list being in a disciplinary folder . By disclosing these details, the Samsung Electronics union branch signaled solidarity and raised pressure on Samsung’s top leadership.

Furthermore, the Samsung Electronics union branch formally demanded clarification from Samsung Electronics HQ on whether similar monitoring or unfair practices are occurring in other affiliates. They warned that if Samsung Electronics does not cooperate in confirming or denying such practices, the union alliance will “assume it’s the same at Samsung Electronics” and respond accordingly . This is effectively an ultimatum hinting at collective action or investigations targeting the broader Samsung Group if transparency isn’t provided. The coalition also stated it stands ready to support the Samsung Biologics union’s fight, emphasizing that this incident “is not a one-company issue but something that could concern the entire Samsung group” .

The involvement of the conglomerate-wide union alliance ups the stakes significantly. It transforms the affair from an isolated dispute at a single subsidiary into a potential group-level labor controversy. Samsung Electronics – by far the largest entity in Samsung Group – now faces scrutiny from its own union about whether the kind of anti-union tactics alleged at Biologics might be part of a wider corporate strategy. This comes at a sensitive time, as Samsung’s corporate image regarding labor rights had been cautiously improving since 2020 when the company pledged reforms.

Company Response and Official Stance

Samsung Biologics’ management has been in damage-control mode, addressing both the data breach and the union’s accusations. As noted, CEO John Rim (Lim) apologized to employees for the personal data exposure, saying “this unauthorized viewing of personal information” should not have happened and vowing to prevent such incidents in the future . The company asserts that as soon as the breach was found on Nov. 6, they took steps to block further access to the sensitive files and began an internal audit of the IT failure . They also notified government authorities by Nov. 9, as required under the Personal Information Protection Act, and have been cooperating with any regulatory inquiries . (South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission is expected to investigate the breach; serious violations of data protection law can result in heavy fines. For instance, another firm was fined over ₩1.1 billion earlier for a large-scale data leak .)

Regarding the union-related content in the leaked documents, Samsung Biologics has strongly denied any wrongdoing or anti-union intent. In the internal memo on Nov. 10, CEO John Rim addressed what he called the “claims by some employees” that the company was looking to disadvantage specific staff. He stated “this is not true”, rejecting the allegation that management planned to penalize particular employees (implicitly refuting the union’s interpretation that those employees are union leaders) . The company maintains that all HR policies and performance evaluations are conducted lawfully and that it “operates its systems in compliance with legal procedures”, not to undermine worker rights .

Samsung Biologics did, however, acknowledge that a small number of employees obtained and shared some of the exposed files externally (for example, with media or on online forums) . The company views this as a breach of confidentiality and potentially illegal. In his message, John Rim cautioned that spreading the company’s internal management and personnel data outside could “seriously harm the company’s interests and employees’ rights” and may violate laws including the Personal Information Protection Act . He indicated that Samsung Biologics is considering legal action against those who disseminated the information, saying a separate review is underway to determine if any employees’ actions warrant charges or disciplinary measures . This stance positions the company as being victimized by a leak and subsequent misuse of data, rather than as a perpetrator of labor infractions.

When it comes to the union office incident, Samsung Biologics has given little public comment (likely due to the ongoing police investigation). Unnamed company sources have suggested that the visit to the union office was driven by data security concerns, implying that management was trying to prevent further leakage of personal information by retrieving company-issued computers . They characterize it as an attempt to protect data (since the union had moved company files onto those PCs), not an attempt to intimidate the union. Nonetheless, this narrative has not convinced the union or labor activists. The incident has drawn criticism as an overreach; even some industry observers note that handling a data breach should follow legal procedures (like requesting return of data or involving data protection regulators) rather than physically raiding a union’s space. Samsung Biologics has stated it will “focus on preventing any additional damage and on measures to avoid recurrence” of such IT incidents , and is likely reviewing its internal security protocols.

Broader Context: Samsung’s History with Unions

The clash at Samsung Biologics is unfolding against the backdrop of Samsung Group’s fraught history with labor unions. For decades, Samsung – South Korea’s largest conglomerate – infamously maintained a “no union” policy, and its management was frequently accused of union-busting tactics whenever employees attempted to organize. These practices were harshly criticized by labor advocates for years . In 2013, for example, an exposé of Samsung Electronics’ internal strategy documents revealed systematic efforts to thwart unionization. Multiple incidents over the years, including the high-profile case of a Samsung Electronics Service subcontractor’s union where company managers were prosecuted for illegal suppression, cemented Samsung’s reputation as an anti-union employer.

A turning point came in May 2020, when Samsung’s de facto leader Lee Jae-yong (Jay Y. Lee) made a public apology and pledge to end the conglomerate’s no-union approach. Amid legal troubles related to a corruption scandal, Lee stated: “I offer a sincere apology to everyone who was hurt by Samsung’s labor union issues… From now on, we will ensure there’s no more talk about a ‘union-free Samsung.’ Samsung will protect workers’ rights to organize, bargain collectively and strike.” . This marked the first time a Samsung chief explicitly promised to respect union rights. Following that, Samsung Electronics saw the establishment of its first recognized labor unions, and other affiliates, including Samsung Biologics, also organized unions. The formation of the cross-affiliate Samsung group union alliance (the “Samsung Super Union” launched in 2021) was a direct result of this new climate, as employees across Samsung units sought collective representation.

Given this context, the allegations emerging from Samsung Biologics are especially significant. If the union’s claims of monitoring union members and disadvantaging them in evaluations are proven true, it would indicate that old habits die hard within parts of Samsung’s management  . Such actions would directly contradict Lee Jae-yong’s 2020 pledge and could be interpreted as unfair labor practices in violation of South Korean law, which protects union activities. Korean labor law prohibits employers from retaliating against or spying on union members; violators can face legal penalties. The fact that the Samsung Electronics union felt compelled to intervene and highlight the issue suggests concern that anti-union tendencies may persist at some Samsung affiliates despite top-level commitments.

It’s also noteworthy that Samsung Biologics is a relatively new and fast-growing unit (a biotech contract manufacturing arm) and had not been at the forefront of Samsung’s labor disputes until now. This incident effectively puts Samsung Biologics under the microscope. The union’s decision to involve the Ministry of Employment and Labor – by reporting the company for alleged union suppression and privacy law violations  – means government labor inspectors could investigate the case. Meanwhile, the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) will likely review the data leak; companies found negligent in protecting personal data or violating notification rules can be subject to fines or other administrative action.

Outlook and Potential Impact

The Samsung Biologics saga is still unfolding, and its outcome could have broader implications for Samsung’s labor-management relations. The police inquiry into the union office intrusion will determine if any executives or security staff face criminal charges. If evidence supports the union’s story (for instance, CCTV footage of the forced entry or logs of the remote door unlock), it could lead to indictments for the individuals involved. This would be a significant embarrassment for Samsung Biologics, and by extension Samsung Group, reminiscent of past incidents where Samsung managers were caught violating labor laws.

The exposed HR documents have already caused public controversy. They bolster the unions’ longstanding argument that Samsung’s performance evaluation systems can be used punitively. Public disclosure of things like a “low performer list” or a “union surveillance list” puts pressure on Samsung Biologics to explain or reform those practices. We may see Samsung Biologics (or Samsung’s headquarters) announcing new compliance measures or an audit of their HR practices to prove that they are not targeting union members. If the Ministry of Labor finds evidence of systematic unfair labor practices, the company could face administrative orders or prosecution under South Korea’s labor laws.

From the Samsung union alliance’s perspective, this incident has become a rallying point. It is likely to increase solidarity among the different affiliate unions, and could even spur union membership growth if employees perceive that the company might still be untrustworthy on labor issues. The alliance’s strong reaction – essentially putting Samsung Electronics and the group on notice – indicates that they may leverage this incident in future collective bargaining or labor negotiations, pressing Samsung to implement group-wide safeguards against union retaliation.

On the other hand, Samsung’s management will be keen to contain the fallout. The company will want to frame this as an isolated incident at one subsidiary, caused by overzealous individuals, rather than a reflection of corporate policy. How Samsung handles Samsung Biologics’ leadership in the aftermath could be telling. For instance, if Executive Song (the one named by the union) is quietly removed or disciplined, it might be a signal of Samsung trying to placate the situation. Conversely, if the company doubles down and punishes the employees who shared the documents externally (as hinted by John Rim’s statement about legal action for data sharers ), it could further inflame tensions by appearing retaliatory.

In summary, Samsung Biologics is now at the center of a high-stakes confrontation between labor and management. A serious internal data leak has inadvertently shone light on alleged union-busting efforts, prompting an unprecedented coalition of Samsung unions to push back. The coming weeks will reveal whether Samsung can uphold its promise of a “new era” of labor relations, or whether old union suppression practices persist under the surface. Observers are watching closely as this case could set an example for how labor disputes in Korea’s corporate giants are handled in the post-“no union” era. The hope among labor groups is that this incident will ultimately lead to stronger protections for employee rights and better corporate transparency, whereas any missteps by Samsung could reignite labor distrust. Samsung Biologics, for its part, has expressed commitment to fixing the IT lapse and moving forward, but it now faces the challenge of rebuilding trust with its workforce and proving that the company truly respects the role of its union in the workplace .

Sources: News reports from MBC, YTN, JoongAng Ilbo (Korea Daily) and others were used in this analysis. Samsung Biologics’ union statements and company memos are cited via those reports. For example, MBC News detailed the union’s police complaint and the alleged office intrusion , while JoongAng Ilbo (via Korea Daily) described the sensitive contents of the leaked HR folder . BizHankook provided an in-depth look at the union’s claims about the leaked documents and Samsung’s internal practices  . BusinessKorea covered CEO John Rim’s official apology and the company’s account of events  . Additional context on Samsung’s labor history was drawn from the Associated Press’s coverage of Lee Jae-yong’s 2020 apology on ending the no-union policy , and Korean press reports on the Samsung group union alliance’s reaction to this incident  . These sources collectively provide a comprehensive view of the unfolding situation and its significance.