기업별 복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this research is to propose an efficient collective bargaining method under the circumstance of the enterprise level multiple unionism, as the regulation on multi union prevention is erased and the enterprise level multiple unionism is able to appear Jan. 1, 2007 according to the amendment of Labor Union Law and Labor Related Laws on March 13, 1997.
For making the bargaining methods suitable to the law system and reality of our country, we examined abroad typical bargaining systems such as the exclusive bargaining representation system in America, the Individual Enterprise system in France and the free bargaining right system in Japan and the possibility to apply them to Korea and the characteristics of each system and the difficulties in applying are as follows.
First, the exclusive bargaining right system in America is the one under which the bargaining right is vested to a trade union only supported by majority through election of the whole employee, and thus it can reduce the bargaining expenses. However the system requires high expenses for voting and administration and it may, virtually, interrupt the existence of a minor union by limiting the collective right to bargaining. The Individual Enterprise system in France admits the collective right to bargaining of all trade unions belonging to a representative union and lays an annual bargaining responsibility on an employer, so that even a minor union can exercise the right to bargaining collectively, while there exists concern to cooperative with a company union and a employer because it allows a employer to make a collective bargaining contract and also disputes may occur between labor and management and between labor and labor due to exercise of bargaining veto by a majority of trade unions. and it introduced(2004-391unit)majorite system of 2004 may 4th law. Meanwhile, the free bargaining system in Japan may be said to ensure completely the three labor right of workers because it admits the collect right to bargaining of all trade unions and a separate collective bargaining contract by each trade union can be existed. However, the bargaining expenses according to negotiation with several trade unions may be expected and several collective bargaining contracts exist, so that problems on discrimination of labor conditions and undue labor act may occur.
Accordingly, in order for such a foreign collective bargaining system to be applied appropriately to the law system and reality of our country, this research suggested one method according to which 󰡐employee majority supporting principle󰡑from American exclusive bargaining system and󰡐the unification principle of bargaining times󰡑frokscm French Individual Enterprise system is appropriately applied. The characteristic of this method is as follows.
First, the request right for collective bargaining is admitted but the bargaining acceptance responsibility of an employer complies with󰡐employee majority support principle󰡑. Second, The bargaining between labor and management and the making of collective bargaining contract between labor and management must be always supported more than majority of employee. Third, If one trade union requests bargaining other trade unions shall accept bargaining by taking the principle of unification of bargaining time and an employer has the responsibility to gather employees in order for them to participate in the meeting. Fourth, According to the principle of collective bargaining contract application, one collective bargaining contract is applied in one company on the basis of agreements between labor and labor, and between labor and capital. Fifth, collective bargaining contract corresponds to the present labor laws system on the basis of the application to the corresponding companies or workers in businesses.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ 서론 1
• Ⅱ 복수노조의 도입 근거 및 경제적 의미 3
• 1 노동3권과 복수노조 3
• 1) 노동3권의 의미 3
• 2) 노동3권의 제한 4
• 2 단체교섭의 경제적 의미 5
• 3 복수노조 도입에 따른 문제점 8
• 1) 복수노조개념 8
• 2) 2006년말까지 금지되는 복수노조 형태 9
• 3) 복수노조 전면허용 의미와 문제점 10
• 4 소결론 13
• Ⅲ 선진국의 복수노조 교섭제도 비교 고찰 14
• 1 미국의 배타적 교섭제도 14
• 1) 교섭단위의 개념 및 확정 14
• (1) 교섭단위의 개념 14
• (2) 교섭단위의 중요성 14
• 2) 교섭단위의 권한과 의무 15
• (1) 배타적 대표권한 15
• (2) 공정대표 의무 16
• (3) 배타적 교섭대표의 결정 16
• (4) 단체협약의 효력 17
• 2 프랑스의 기업별교섭권제도 17
• 1) 프랑스의 대표적 노동조합 17
• 2) 기업별 교섭권제도 특징 17
• 3) 기업별 교섭의 내용 18
• 4) 기업별 단체협약 18
• 5) 2004년도 5월4일의 법률(2004-391호) 19
• 3 일본의 자유교섭권제도 19
• 1) 자유교섭권제의 내용 19
• (1) 각 조합의 단체교섭권―사용자의교섭응낙의무 19
• (2) 사용자 중립적태도 유지의무―형식적인 단체교섭문제 20
• (3) 단체협약의 적용범위 및 효력 20
• 4 외국교섭제도의 특징과 적용가능성 21
• 1) 외국단체교섭제도의 특징 비교 21
• 2) 미국 배타적 교섭대표자의 특징과 우리나라적용가능성 22
• (1) 배타적교섭 대표제의특징 22
• (2) 우리나라적의 적용가능성 검토 23
• 3) 프랑스 기업별교섭제도의 특징과 우리나라 적용가능성 25
• (1) 기업별교섭권제도의 특징 25
• (2) 우리나라의 적용가능성 검토 25
• 4) 일본 자유교섭권제의 특징과 우리나라 적용가능성 26
• (1) 자유교섭권제의 특징 26
• (2) 우리나라의 적용가능성 27
• 5 소결론 27
• Ⅳ 국내 복수노조의 단체교섭 사례 비교 30
• 1 교원노조 사례 30
• 1) 사례 개관 30
• 2) 교섭관행 32
• 3) 교섭방식의 평가 33
• 2 국민건강보험공단노조 사례 35
• 1) 사례 개관 35
• 2) 노노간의 갈등 36
• 3) 교섭관행 37
• 4) 노사간의 문제점 38
• 5) 교섭방식의 평가 41
• 3 국민은행노조 사례 42
• 1) 사례 개관 42
• 2) 교섭관행 43
• 3) 교섭방식 평가 44
• 4 소결론 45
• Ⅴ 복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화 방안 48
• 1 개관 48
• 2 노사관계제도 선진화 방안 49
• 1) 논의된 각 안의 주요내용 51
• 3 교섭창구 단일화에 대한 노사간의 입장 차이 52
• 1) 노동계 입장 52
• 2) 경영계의 입장 52
• 4 복수노조 교섭창구 단일화 관련 제안 55
• 1) 모든 노조의 단체교섭요구권 인정원칙 55
• 2) 근로자 과반수지지의 원칙 55
• 3) 교섭시기 단일화의 원칙 57
• 4) 단일화 단체협약 적용의 원칙 59
• 5) 교섭창구 단일화에 따른 쟁의행위 60
• 6) 교섭창구 단일화와 노사관계 안정화 60
• 5 소결론 61
• Ⅵ 결론 64
• 참고문헌 67