유일 노동조합하에서의 교섭창구단일화 절차 이행 여부와 쟁의행위의 정당성

조상균(Cho, Sang-Kyun) 한양법학회 2016 漢陽法學 Vol.27 No.1

This case is significant in that it deals with the issues as to: (1) whether there is a legal duty to carry out the single bargaining channel process even in single union cases, (2) if the process is carried out, whether it can maintain the status of representative collective bargain union, and (3) finally, what kinds of implications may follow with respect the legitimacy of industrial action and the single bargaining channel system. With respect to the issues identified above, the court held that: if there is only one labor union, such a union can request collective bargaining without having to go through the single bargain channel process; that it can proceed to labor dispute practice, if collective bargaining fails,; and that such industrial action is legitimate as a proper party. Such determinations appear to reflect section 29-2 of the labor Law substantially. Further, even when it is not so clear as to whether there are more than one union, the argument that one still shall go through the complex single bargaining channel determination process only to make sure there is a single union present cannot be accepted easily, given the legislative intent behind the single bargaining channel system. Also, even assuming that section 29-2 is a mandatory provision, which is not, according to the holding, the grant of legitimacy to the labor dispute practice is proper in that the single bargaining channel system is an exceptional provision that is necessitated to promote efficiency in cases of plural unions. Moreover, in this case, there was no second union and there was no request for bargaining by another union till the end of dispute, and therefore the holding in this case was entirely proper. Finally, in cases of single union, there is a substantial difficulty in carrying out the single bargaining channel process, regardless of whether the relevant provision is mandatory or permissive. Therefore, the author objects to the grant of the status of representative labor union, beyond the grant of the status of a party to the bargaining process.

비정규직 관련법의 문제점과 개선방안

조상균(Sang Kyun Cho) 한국고용노사관계학회 2010 産業關係硏究 Vol.20 No.1

2009년 7월 1일로 비정규직 근로자의 보호를 목적으로 제정 또는 개정된 비정규직 관련법이 시행된 지 2년이 되었다. 그러나 원래 비정규직 관련법이의도했던 비정규직 근로자의 ‘고용안정’과 ‘차별금지’는 친사용자적 정부로 평가받고 있는 현 정부의 정책기조와 경제위기라는 사회ㆍ경제적 환경 속에서 구조조정 수단의 하나로 작용하는 등 입법화 과정에서부터 시작된 많은 논란이 실제로 현실화되는 결과를 낳고 있다. 따라서 본고는 법 시행 2년에 즈음하여 현행 비정규직법의 문제점을 종합적으로 검토해 보고, 기왕의 비정규직법의 개정 움직임에 맞추어, 처음 비정규직법을 제정 또는 개정 시에 논의되었던 입법 취지에 부합할 수 있는 내용으로 개정되기 위한 구체적 논의에 시사점을 주는 것을 목적으로 한다. 연구 결과에 따르면, 우선 ‘고용보장’에 있어 최근의 비정규직 감소 경향이나 정규직 전환율의 상승이 비정규직법의 시행 효과라고 평가한다. 따라서 ‘고용보장’ 측면에서는 제도의 개선을 중심으로 한 단기적 조치가 시급히 요구되지만, 장기적으로는 기간제 근로자에 대한 ‘기한제한’ 방식을 그대로 유지하면서 ‘반복갱신 사유’를 부과하는 방법을 제시해 보았다. 또한 ‘차별금지’에 있어서는 전면적인 개선이 시급히 필요하다는 전제하에 종래 학계에서 연구된 내용을 제외하고 최근 쟁점화될 가능성이 있는 주제를 중심으로 구제신청자의 확대, 구제신청 기간에 대한 재검토, 합리적 이유의 판단 기준에 대한 문제에 대한 해명을 중심으로 논하였다. 오늘날 비정규직 문제는 개별적인 노사 문제를 떠나서 사회 전체에 영향을 끼치는 사회 문제의 핵심으로 자리잡고 있다. 결국 우리 사회가 비정규직 문제를 풀지 못하는 한 사회양극화 문제, 사회분열 등 돌이킬 수 없는 혼란에 따른 비용을 각자가 지출해야 하는 것이다. 따라서 비정규직 문제의 해결의 시급성이 여기에 있다고 할 수 있다. As of July 1, 2009, it has been two years since the enactment of and the amendments to the law on nonstandard workers with the stated purpose of protecting the nonstandard workers. However, the concerns and the controversies over the law that arose during the enhancementprocess have become reality. For instance, the original goals of the law, ‘employment security’ and ‘anti-discrimination,’ are somehow being used as means of business restructuring under the current employer-friendly administration’s policies and the socio-economic environments resulted from the global economic crisis. In this regard, this paper attempts toreview the problems of the current nonstandard workers law comprehensively. It also intends to shed light on the detailed discussions being conducted to amend the law to conform it to the original legislative purpose that was debated during the enactment process. According to the researches in this area, as for the issue of ‘employment security,’ the recent decrease of the number of nonstandard jobs and the increase of the conversion rate from nonstandard to standard have been considered the effect of the law. Hence, as for the issue of ‘employment security,’ while short-term measures including the improvement of the current system are urgently needed, this paper proposes that we impose the requirement of ‘the causes for repeated renewal’ in long run. In addition, as for the issue of ‘anti-discrimination,’ with the assumption that an overall improvement is urgently required, this paper discusses the solutions for the issues that might become controversies such as the enlargement of the applicants for relief, the re-examination of the application for relief period, and the standard for reasonable cause. This paper excludes the issues that have been researched and discussed already in the academic circle. Today, the issue of nonstandard workers, which affects the entire society as well as the labor relations, is located at the center of the social problems. After all, if our society fails to resolve the issue of nonstandard workers, every one of us will have to pay costs associated with the irreparable problems like the social polarization and divisions. The urgency to handle this problem therefore lies here.

교섭창구단일화제도의 쟁점과 문제점

조상균(Cho Sang Kyun) 한국노동법학회 2012 노동법학 Vol.0 No.43

The purpose of this research is to review and to clarify the issues and questions regarding the implementation and operation of the Single Bargaining Channel System, which has been in effect for one year since July 1, 2011. For this purpose, this paper critically reviews a recent case rendered by the Constitutional Court involving the issue of the constitutionality of the Single Bargaining Channel System and criticizes the policy behind this system. It also identifies the issues and questions regarding bargaining units, individual bargaining practice, the effect of prohibition against double enrollment by union rules, and the relationship between the single channel system and the mandatory collective bargaining, and the interpretation of section 4 of the labor union law and the labor relations act, and attempts to provide solutions for them. In addressing such issues and questions, what the author considers the most important is that the laws on collective union practice are just rules to guarantee the self-ruling of employer-labor relations, but not an actor on the stage showing the laws on labor issues. From this view point, it follows that the Single Bargaining Channel System under the current labor laws can be seen as a potentially dangerous mechanism that may harm the order in labor relations. Therefore, there shall be many efforts in reviewing the scheme before actual problems emerge. It is hoped that this study can contribute to such efforts.

파견근로자에 대한 차별시정

조상균(Sang Kyun Cho) 한국노동연구원 2010 노동정책연구 Vol.10 No.2

본 연구는 파견근로자에 대한 독자적인 차별시정에 대한 본격적인 논의가 필요하다는 전제 하에 파견근로자에 대한 차별시정제도에 대하여 검토한 것이다. 이를 위해서 파견법에 규정된 차별시정제도를 둘러싸고 제기될 수 있는 몇 가지 문제점을 도출하여 일정한 대안을 검토해 보았다. 파견법상 파견근로자에 대한 차별시정제도의 도입이 반드시 파견근로자에 대한 인권의 보호만을 목적으로 하고 있지 않다는 점은 부인하기 어렵다. 그러나 그렇다고 해서 비정상적 고용형태인 근로자파견 관계를 활성화시키기 위해서나 또는 계속해서 용인하려는 목적으로 차별시정제도를 해석ㆍ운용해야 한다는 것은 본말이 전도된 것으로 평가할 수밖에 없다. 따라서 사용사업주는 다소 비용의 부담을 지더라도 근로자를 사용하는 데 발생하는 이익만을 누릴 수 있도록 해야 하며, 이는 파견법에 차별시정제도를 도입한 가장 큰 목적이 되어야 할 것으로 보인다. 그러므로 첫째, 노동위원회는 신청인이 외형상 도급근로자라 할지라도 차별시정 판단의 선결 문제로서 다른 기관에 독립적으로 선결 문제로서 이를 판단해야 하며, 둘째, 파견근로자에 대한 차별적 처우를 판단함에 있어 ‘직접 고용관계에 따라 형성되는 근로조건’인지 ‘사용사업주의 사업장 편입에 따라 형성되는 근로조건’인지를 구별할 필요는 없고, 이러한 차별에 합리적 이유가 되는지 여부를 판단하는 데 근거가 되어서도 아니 된다. 셋째, 단체협약에 대한 차별은 차별시정제도의 강행규정으로서의 성질상 허용될 수 없다. 넷째, 파견근로자에 대한 차별시정제도의 실효성을 확보한다는 점에서 차별시정명령 이행의무자는 파견사업주 및 사용사업주의 책임 영역을 구분하지 않고 양자를 시정명령 이행의무자로 판단해야 한다. This research reviews the correcting discrimination for temporary agency workers, with the presumption that there is a need for a full scale discussion on the possible independent corrective measures for the discrimination against temporary agency workers. To achieve this goal, this paper identifies several issues surrounding the corrective measures provided under the Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers (the ‘Act’) and reviews possible alternatives. Under the Act, it can hardly be denied that the introduction of the corrective measures is not solely intended to protect the human rights of temporary agency workers. However, it does not necessarily mean that we need to interpret such corrective measures to promote the temp agency practice, an irregular type of employment relationship, or to continue to allow such practice. Such an interpretation would put the cart before the horse. Accordingly, the secondary employer will be permitted to enjoy only the benefits stemming from employing the temp agency workers, even when it means he will be burdened in costs. This should be the biggest goal behind the Act. First, therefore, the Labor Relations Commission shall determine, independently from other institutions, the status of the applicant as a prerequisite, even when it appears that the applicant seems to be an independent contractor. Second, when it determines the issue of possible discrimination against temp workers, there is no need to determine whether the working conditions are those formed through direct employment relationship or the ones formed through the incorporation into the secondary employer’s job site. Further this should not be a factor in determining whether the discriminative practice is reasonable. Third, the discrimination against collective bargaining agreements shall not be allowed due to the nature of the corrective measures as an enforcement measure. Finally, in order to secure the practical effect of the measures, primary employers and secondary employers shall be both subject to the orders of correction without separating their responsible areas.

복수노조하의 조합간 차별과 공정대표의무

조상균(Cho, Sang-Kyun) 한국노동법학회 2014 노동법학 Vol.0 No.52

Under TURLAA, the duty of fair representation refers to the duty not to discriminate against the participating unions without reasonable grounds (Section 29-4). The statue imposes this duty on the representative union in order to protect the minority participating unions, and prohibits discrimination against the non-selected unions and their members who have participated in the bargaining channel unification procedure. The representative union and the employer(s) owe this duty to participating unions. The duty is imposed on the employer because, although the representative union owes the same duty, it needs the employer’s cooperation in substantially satisfying this duty, and because the employer can also breach this duty under certain circumstances. Under this duty, the representative union shall not conduct the bargaining unfairly or enter into an unfair collective agreement. Furthermore, it shall not discriminate against minority unions in dispute resolution, implementation of collective agreement, or union activities without reasonable grounds. The term “reasonable grounds” means without arbitrariness, bad faith, or lack of sincerity, and the existence of reasonable grounds is determined case by case, considering all the factual circumstances. If the representative union breaches it duty and discriminates against minority unions and their members, the injured unions can request a remedy from the LRC within 3 months of the discriminatory conduct. If the LRC finds discrimination without reasonable grounds, it shall issue an injunctive order. The parties with standing to seek this remedy are all the unions, except the representative union, that have participated in the selection process. Accordingly, individual union members have no standing. The appeals procedure regarding the order or the decision by the LRC on this issue follows the procedure for the remedy on unfair labor practices.

씨생강 대량생산 실용화 연구

조상균(Sang kyun Cho),현동윤(Dong Yun Hyun),노경희(Kyung Hee Roh),김기영(Ki Young Kim),최인록(In Lok Choi),김수동(Soo Dong Kim),박문수(Moon Su Park) 한국원예학회 1997 한국원예학회 학술발표요지 Vol.15 No.1

韓国の集団的労働関係法の成立における日本法の影響

趙翔均(Cho, Sang-Kyun) 한국비교노동법학회 2014 노동법논총 Vol.31 No.-

The Korean Statutes on Collective Labor Relations were enacted more than 60 years ago. Yet, the development on those laws have been significantly influenced by the relevant Japanese laws, as evidenced by the fact that one cannot meaningfully discuss the development of the Korean laws without discussing relevant Japanese statutes and the Japanese cases thereto. There has been very little discussion as to why the Korean system has been deeply influenced by the Japanese laws. However, it can be assumed that Korea did not have a lot of resistance in incorporating and adopting Japanese theories and cases, for the reasons that: (1) the basic contents of the laws are very similar between the two countries; (2) that both countries recognize the three labor rights as constitutional rights; and (3) that labor unions are organized per business in both countries. The Korean system on collective labor relations has shown a trend to move beyond the Japanese influence, while keeping the basic structure from the enactment, with significant changes such as the unification of negotiation channel pursuant to one business one negotiation principle. Despite this recent trend, the comparative analysis on the Japanese and the Korean systems is still important, as illustrated by following points. The case law theory on collective agreement has been the foundation for Korean laws on collective labor relations. Moreover, in case of multiple unions, the Japanese case law theory on the duty of neutrality to be imposed on employers has been referenced and discussed in cases involving discrimination against one union in Korea.

비정규직 차별시정 10년의 사례 분석

조상균(Cho, Sang-Kyun) 한국노동법학회 2017 노동법학 Vol.0 No.63

It has been 10 years since the System of Correcting Discrimination against Irregular Employees was put in force. For 10 years, a lot of cases have been dealt with in the Labor Relations Commission(LRC) and the Courts. This research briefly reviews operational problems concerning the system to correct discrimination against irregular employees for 10 years, proposes the direction of development of the system of correcting discrimination. As a quasi-judicial agency, the LRC has assessed that it has played its role as the most authoritative agency in discrimination judgment against irregular employees over the past decade. However it is hard to deny that the operation and criteria for discrimination and intepretation of the law are still illogical, moreover, it is evident that can not be free from criticism that it has become more irreconcilable and aggravated the discrimination against irregular employees. Therefore, further discussion of future developments direction about this system, including these criticism, will be necessary.

도입(중국)종 생강 적정 파종 시기 구명

조상균(Sang Kyun Cho),심강보(Kang Bo Shim),박기훈(Ki Hun Park),김태수(Tae Soo Kim),서득용(Duck Yong Suh) 한국원예학회 2005 한국원예학회 학술발표요지 Vol.2005 No.5

양파 재배양식이 채종용 모구 수량 및 저장에 미치는 영향

조상균(Sang Kyun Cho),최인후(In Hu Choi),이을태(Eul Tai Lee),장영석(Young Seok Jang),현동윤(Dong Yun Hyun),김철우(Cheol Woo Kim) 한국원예학회 2001 한국원예학회 학술발표요지 Vol.2001 No.10