지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제36호
- 발행연도
- 2022.7
- 수록면
- 31 - 65 (35page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2022.07.36.31
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In March 24, 2022, the National Labor Relations Commission (the “NLRC”) has rendered a decision (the “Decision”), which extended the scope of employer status under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act of Korea (the “Labor Union Act”) in relation to the labor union of the subcontractor (the “Subcontractor Union”).
In a case where the Subcontractor Union had claimed that the Contractor’s refusal to respond to the collective bargaining requested by the Subcontractor Union would constitute ‘unfair labor practice’ under the Labor Union Act, the NLRC took a progressive stance by explicitly adopting “de facto governing theory” instead of “implicit employment relationship theory,” and recognizing the Contractor’s obligation to respond to the Subcontractor Union’s request for collective bargaining.
However, the Decision has failed to understand the basic structure of the Labor Union Act and such decision will only incur unresolvable practical difficulties, and increase unnecessary legal disputes and turmoil between the Contractor and Subcontractor Union. The main logical defects of the Decision is as follows.
1) The Decision appears to have deliberately distorted former court judgments and decisions rendered by the Regional LRC. In this regard, I tried to list up and assess all relevant cases for the past 10 years in order to induce a conclusion that “implicit employment relationship theory” has been and is a prevailing theory, except for a very few cases under special circumstances.
2) The ultimate purpose of collective bargaining is to execute a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) and the CBA in principle governs the terms and conditions of employment. Hence “de facto governing theory” which severs the CBA from the employment relationship is simply illogical and irrational. At least under the current Labor Union Act, there is no convincing legal grounds to extend the scope of employer-employee relation beyond the traditional contractual employment relationship.
3) Under the “de facto governing theory,” it would be impossible to resolve issues surrounding unification of bargaining channel between the Subcontractor Union and the union of the Contractor. Further, punishing the Contractor for unfair labor practice for not responding to the request of collective bargaining would likely to be in violation of “nulla poena sine lege principle” under the Korean Constitution.
Due to the recent development of multi-facet relationship between service provider and service receiver under the Fourth Evolution Era, it may be right time to discuss reforming the Korean labor laws. However, it would be prudent to abide by the current legal regime under the Labor Union Act until the Korean Assembly formally adopts such reform given that the legal stability is a key to a more stable labor relationship in Korea.
In a case where the Subcontractor Union had claimed that the Contractor’s refusal to respond to the collective bargaining requested by the Subcontractor Union would constitute ‘unfair labor practice’ under the Labor Union Act, the NLRC took a progressive stance by explicitly adopting “de facto governing theory” instead of “implicit employment relationship theory,” and recognizing the Contractor’s obligation to respond to the Subcontractor Union’s request for collective bargaining.
However, the Decision has failed to understand the basic structure of the Labor Union Act and such decision will only incur unresolvable practical difficulties, and increase unnecessary legal disputes and turmoil between the Contractor and Subcontractor Union. The main logical defects of the Decision is as follows.
1) The Decision appears to have deliberately distorted former court judgments and decisions rendered by the Regional LRC. In this regard, I tried to list up and assess all relevant cases for the past 10 years in order to induce a conclusion that “implicit employment relationship theory” has been and is a prevailing theory, except for a very few cases under special circumstances.
2) The ultimate purpose of collective bargaining is to execute a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) and the CBA in principle governs the terms and conditions of employment. Hence “de facto governing theory” which severs the CBA from the employment relationship is simply illogical and irrational. At least under the current Labor Union Act, there is no convincing legal grounds to extend the scope of employer-employee relation beyond the traditional contractual employment relationship.
3) Under the “de facto governing theory,” it would be impossible to resolve issues surrounding unification of bargaining channel between the Subcontractor Union and the union of the Contractor. Further, punishing the Contractor for unfair labor practice for not responding to the request of collective bargaining would likely to be in violation of “nulla poena sine lege principle” under the Korean Constitution.
Due to the recent development of multi-facet relationship between service provider and service receiver under the Fourth Evolution Era, it may be right time to discuss reforming the Korean labor laws. However, it would be prudent to abide by the current legal regime under the Labor Union Act until the Korean Assembly formally adopts such reform given that the legal stability is a key to a more stable labor relationship in Korea.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 사건의 경위와 노동위원회 판정 요지
Ⅲ. 중노위 판정의 문제점
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
원청사업주의 단체교섭의무와 실질적 지배력 판단기준 및 교섭사항
노동법학
2024 .12
-
노동조합법상 사용자성에 관한 연구— 단체교섭과 부당노동행위 주체의 비교･분석 —
사회법연구
2023 .04
-
원･하청 관계에서 원청의 단체교섭 의무
노동법논총
2022 .08
-
원청의 하청업체 노동조합에 대한 단체교섭의무- 대우조선해양 중노위 판정을 중심으로 -
법학논집
2023 .06
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
부당노동행위 구제신청의 주체와 구제명령의 상대방인 사용자 —대상판결: 대법원 2022.5.12. 선고 2017두54005 판결—
노동법포럼
2023 .03
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
복수노조 병존과 부당노동행위 - 단체교섭에 따른 차별적 처우와 사용자의 중립의무를 중심으로 -
노동법논총
2020 .12
-
단체교섭에 있어서 원청의 사용자성에 관한 연구(Ⅱ) — CJ대한통운 2심판결(서울고등법원 2024. 1. 24. 선고 2023누34646 판결)을 중심으로 —
사회법연구
2024 .08
-
하청업체 노동조합의 단체교섭 상대방으로서의 원청사업주의 사용자성 —제조업에서의 최근 하급심판결과 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로—
노동법포럼
2022 .07
-
원·하청 노동관계의 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 하청노동조합의 원청사업주 교섭단위 참여를 중심으로 -
노동법학
2024 .06
-
부당노동행위 인정요건과 판단
노동법학
2016 .03
-
노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 원청의 사용자성 - 단체교섭 의무 인정 여부를 중심으로 (부산고등법원 2018. 11. 14. 선고 2018나53149 판결)
사법
2023 .03
-
부당노동행위 구제제도의 실효성 확보를 위한 제언
노동법포럼
2019 .11
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
미국의 노동조합 경비원조에 대한 태도와 시사점
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
원청은 하청노동조합의 단체교섭의 상대방으로서 사용자인가? - 택배노동조합사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2021 .11
-
간접고용과 노동쟁의 조정의 쟁점
노동법학
2020 .09
-
교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -
노동법포럼
2017 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
노동위원회 심판의 법리
이관수
노동법학
2023
.03
정리해고의 우회 수단인 후선배치에 대한 정당성 여부 ○ 서울고등법원 2022. 4. 7. 선고 2021누55861 판결
양승엽
노동법학
2022
.06
근로계약상 사용자의 보호의무 위반에 따른 근로자의 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효 ○ 대법원 2021. 8. 19. 선고 2018다270876 판결
노호창
노동법학
2022
.06
주휴일 제도에 관한 국제노동기준과 한국법의 비교법적 검토
조용만
노동법학
2022
.06
「노동조합 및 노동관계조정법」상 근로자개념의 해석
박지순
법학연구
2021
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0