노동법의 규범구조와 근로권과 노동3권의 관계

이달휴 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 圓光法學 Vol.35 No.1

The article 23 and 33 of the Constitution guarantees the right to work and the labor’s three primary rights as basic rights. The Constitution stipulates rights to work and labor’s three primary rights at the same time is rare except for Korea and Japan. The basic right of labor, as anyone perceives, is the basic right prescribed for workers. But these regulations give rise to questions. What is the relationship between the right to work and the labor’s three primary rights. The principle of positive law is that labor rights are applied first between right to work and labor’s three primary rights. In fact, the labor management issues should be resolved voluntarily by the labor authorities. By the way, given the fact that labor union membership remains around 10%, most workers who do not belong to the labor union are protected by the right to work. In theory, labor’s three primary rights are the first to protect workers, whereas in reality workers are protected by labor rights. Recognizing this reality, I was told about France’s labor reform law. The content of France’s labor reform law is the integration of the individual labor relations law and the collective labor-management relations law, and the direction changes to the structure of civil law. Korea needed to see if it could integrate the individual labor relations law and the collective labor-management relations law like the France’s labor reform law, and looked at the relationship between the two as the forward stage. In order to integrate the two laws as a result, it would have to be the logic of respecting the will of th parties. In order words, the will of worker and employer should always take precedence except for absolute social order on the assumption of equal power between workers and employers. In this case, it is also necessary to change the labor law as a fair in order to protect a worker-lice person or small subcontractors. In other words, labor law can be recognized as a fairness of protercting labor value properly.

근로 3권 관련 헌법재판소 판결문 성향분석

공선명(Kong, Sun myoung) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2013 법과기업연구 Vol.3 No.1

Workers create their own union to negotiate with employers in a comparable position, and they do the strikes in order to secure the rights to have basic standard of human life in case the negotiations are not amicably formed. The rights of these workers are ensured by the labor’s three primary rights in Article 33 of the Constitution. The labor’s three primary rights have a powerful influence on corporations and the nation, and are closely related to economic aspects of the country. This study focuses on analyzing the judicial inclination of the Constitutional Court associated with the labor’s three primary rights. Firstly, the content of the labor’s three primary rights in the Constitution will be reviewed, and then the important court rulings of the Constitutional Court related to the labor’s three primary rights will be summarized. Based on the summary of the important court decisions, the judicial inclination will be qualitatively analyzed. By evaluating each decision, we will look into which conclusion was made by the Constitutional Court, related to the labor’s three primary rights. By analyzing the judicial inclination of the Constitutional Court related to the labor’s three primary rights according to the statistics, we will examine quantitatively the judicial inclination of the Constitutional Court. At the result of the analysis on the judicial inclination of the Constitutional Court, it turns out that the important court rulings of the Constitutional Court related to the labor’s three primary rights tend to take the judicial restraint. The research in the quantitative way also has the tendency of the judicial restraint. It is expected that the studies in the field and the decisions of the Constitutional Court come for the sake of both owners and workers.

공무원의 노동삼권에 관한 개헌방향의 검토

장영수 고려대학교 법학연구원 2018 고려법학 Vol.0 No.91

Raising the prospect of amendment to the Constitution made by the 9th reform in 1987, diverse proposals were presented by various political parties and civic groups on the amendment of the right-to-work of public officials. Especially, the discussion of constitutional amendment in the future would be influenced by the constitutional amendment proposed by the President Moon and the proposal of constitutional amendment by the Advisory Board of the National Assembly Constitutional Revision Committee. However, there are concerns for the gap among the proposals and being overly biased. Also, two things would be at issue;first, those who propose the amendment believe that labor's three primary rights can be applied to a public official exactly; second, it is ignored that radical extension labor's three primary rights to a public official may give rise to widespread discontent among people. From a long-term perspective, to strengthen guarantee of labor’s three primary rights for public service is most desirable. The radical reforms, however, will face implacable opposition or resistance from people. So, more moderate and gradual reforms may be preferable. In this context, the amendment of the President Moon on labor's three primary rights for a public official will be a realistic alternative than the proposal of constitutional amendment by the Advisory Board of the National Assembly Constitutional Revision Committee. In a case like that, it should not be overlooked that to strengthen labor's three primary rights for workers who are not public officials makes new problem such as the wide disparity of labor's three primary rights. 1987년 제9차 개헌에 의해 만들어진 현행헌법에 대한 개정이 가시화되는 가운데 공무원의 노동삼권에 대한 개헌에 대해서도 여러 정당들이나 각종 시민단체에서도 다양한 안이 제시된 바 있다. 특히 국회 개헌특위 자문위의 안과 대통령 개헌안은 향후의 개헌논의과정에서도 중요한 영향력을 행사할 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 그러나 이러한 다양한 개헌안들의 내용은 적지 않은 차이를 보이고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 지나치게 이상에 치우친 것은 아닌가 라는 우려도 만만치 않다. 또한 공직 내지 공무원의 특성을 가볍게 생각하여 일반 노동자의 노동삼권을 공무원에게 대부분 그대로 적용할 수 있다고 생각하는 문제점, 공무원의 노동삼권의 급진적 확대가 야기할 국민적 불신과 불만을 간과할 것은 아닌지 문제된다. 장기적 관점에서 보면, 공무원의 노동삼권 강화는 시대의 흐름에 맞는 것으로 보인다. 그러나 급진적인 개혁은 오히려 더 큰 저항과 반대에 부딪힐 수 있으며, 보다 온건하고 점진적인 개혁이 더 바람직할 것으로 보인다. 그런 의미에서 국회 개헌특위 자문위원회의 개정시안보다는 대통령 개헌안의 공무원 노동삼권에 대한 제안이 현실적인 대안이라고 평가된다. 다만, 대통령 개헌안의 규정방식을 따를 경우에도 공무원이 아닌 노동자의 노동삼권을 과도하게 강화하고, 그로 인하여 공무원의 노동삼권과의 괴리가 커질 경우에는 새로운 문제가 야기될 수 있음을 간과해서는 안 될 것이다.

청원경찰법 제11조의 위헌성

윤성진(YUN, Sung Jin),김경제(KIM, Kyong Je) 유럽헌법학회 2015 유럽헌법연구 Vol.18 No.-

공무원이 아닌 근로자의 신분을 가지고 있음에도 불구하고 업무가 공공성을 띄고 있다는 등의 이유로 관련 법률에 의해 근로3권 행사를 제한받고 있는 이들을 발견할 수 있다. 그런데 이들 대다수가 근로3권중 에서 공익을 위한 최소한의 필요조치로서 단체행동권만을 제한받을 뿐, 직접행동을 수반하지 않는 단결권과 단체교섭권은 정상적으로 행사할 수 있다. 그러나 청원경찰은 청원경찰법 제11조에 의해 이들의 업무상 공공성 등을 이유로 근로3권을 전부 금지 받고 있다. 이 때문에 청원경찰이 마찬가지로 공공적 업무를 수행하는 다른 근로자들에 비해 상대적으로 근로3권을 과도하게 제한을 받고 있는 것이 아닌지 의문이 든다. 앞서 헌법재판소는 2008년에 해당 조항의 위헌성을 두고서 심사를 한 적 있다. 그러나 당시 다수의 재판관이 위헌이라는 견해를 피력했음에도 불구하고 위헌결정이 내려지기 위한 정족수를 충족하지 못해 판결이 미뤄지고 말았다. 헌법적 의미에서 보면 입법자는 입법을 통해 개인의 기본권을 제한하더라도 원칙적으로 과잉금지의 원칙이나 평등의 원칙과 같은 기본권 제한의 한계를 정하는 원리를 일탈할 수 없고, 타법과 체계상 균형을 이루는 선에서 기본권을 제한하는 입법이 가능하다. 그리고 기본권에 법 이론상 절대적 부분이 존재 한다면 기본권 중에서 제한이 허용되는 범위 밖에 본질적인 핵심영역을 제한해서는 안된다. 이 모든 사실을 감안한다면, 청원경찰의 근로3권을 전부 금지하는 청원경찰법 제11조는 기본권제한입법의 한계를 일탈한 것으로서 헌법에 위반한다. We can easily find people who are laborers not public servants and yet cannot exercise labor's three primary rights because their work is related to public interest. All those people mentioned above have one thing in common. They cannot exercise the right of collective action, among labor's three primary rights, due to the consideration of public interest. However, unlike others, police assigned for special guard, under article 11 of POLICE ASSIGNED FOR SPECIAL GUARD ACT, are banned from exercising all of the labor’s three primary rights, because their work is related to public interest. Because of this restriction, it seems that police assigned for special guard are disproportionately discriminated from invoking labor’s three primary rights compared to other laborers whose works are also related to public interest. The Constitutional court once examined to provision whether it is unconstitutional. On the ruling, although many judges claimed that the provision is unconstitutional based on the fact that it is restricting labor’s three primary rights, they failed to meet the quorum. Although legislatures can restrict fundamental rights they cannot deviate from the principles such as Principle of the proportion and The rule of equality that limits the restriction of fundamental rights. Moreover, theoretically if there are absolute portion, when restricting fundamental rights, this portion cannot be disturbed. Considering all these, restriction on labor's three primary rights of the police assigned for special guard based on article 11 of POLICE ASSIGNED FOR SPECIAL GUARD ACT surpassed the limits of restricting fundamental rights and cannot be freed from the doubts whether the provision is unconstitutional.

단결권의 이해

박은정 한국사회법학회 2022 社會法硏究 Vol.- No.48

This paper reviews the right to organize, considered to be one of the labor’s three primary rights, from the viewpoint of ratification of ILO Convention No. 87 and constitutional guarantee. No one would challenge that the right to organize has an aspect of the right of freedom. This paper starts from basic critical minds such as what the right to organize as a right of freedom means, what position the right to organize has in the labor’s three primary rights as constitutional right of freedom, and what the relation between the constitutional right to organize in Korea and freedom of association or the right to organize in the ILO Convention No. 87 is. What follows after sorting out the critical minds mentioned above is, of course, the freedom to organize. The freedom to organize means not only the freedom to or not to organize, but is freedom to negotiate and act based on that freedom. Because the whole freedom to organize connected to right to dignity in Article 10 of the Constitution can be meaningful by including the freedom to negotiate and act, and can get the meaning as right to organize going beyond the constitutional freedom of association. When considering the right to organize in this viewpoint, the limits of union shop system, union establishment report system, and exclusion of conciliation service of labor relations boards. 본고는 노동3권이라고 표현되는 권리들 가운데 단결권을 ILO 제87호 협약 비준과 헌법적 보장의 측면에서 검토한 것이다. 단결권이 자유권으로서의 성격을 갖는다는 것에 이의를 제기하는 사람은 아마도 없을 것이다. 다만, 본고는 자유권으로서의 단결권이라는 것이 어떤 의미를 갖는 것인지, 헌법상 기본권으로서 노동3권의 보장 가운데 단결권은 어떤 위치에 놓이는지 그리고 우리나라 헌법상 단결권과 ILO 제87호 협약상 결사의 자유 내지 단결할 권리는 어떻게 관계 지워야 할 것인지 등에 대한 기본적인 문제의식을 갖고 출발하였다. 위와 같은 문제의식들을 정리하면서 얻어낼 수 있는 결론은, 단결의 자유이다. 단결의 자유는 단지 단결할 혹은 단결하지 않을 자유만을 의미하는 것은 아니고, 단결의 자유가 바탕이 된 교섭과 행동의 자유이다. 교섭과 행동의 자유를 포함함으로써 헌법 제10조의 존엄권과 연결되는 온전한 단결의 자유가 의미를 가질 수 있기 때문이다. 그리고 헌법상 결사의 자유에 머무르지 않는 단결권으로서의 의미를 찾을 수 있기 때문이다. 이러한 의미로 단결권을 바라보았을 때 유니온숍 제도, 노동조합 설립신고제도, 노동위원회 조정서비스 배제 등의 한계를 함께 읽어 나갈 수 있다고 생각한다.

부당노동행위 처벌조항의 입법사 및 비교법적 고찰 — 부당노동행위 처벌조항의 한계 및 문제점을 중심으로 —

김희성,최홍기 한국비교노동법학회 2019 노동법논총 Vol.46 No.-

Unfair labor practices are acts that infringe upon the labor-management relations that are created by guaranteeing workers’ three primary rights and allowing national intervention in such practices. The current Labor Union Act prohibits five types of unfair labor practices, stipulates the application of penalties to employers who violate those practices, and outlines procedures for relief available to workers through the Labor Relations Commission. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of combination, which incorporates both punishments and administrative relief. By employing a system of punishment and one of administrative relief toward unfair labor practices, the current Labor Union Act has tried to promote advantages and overcome shortcomings from both measures. It accomplishes this by reducing damages caused by unfair labor practices that have already transpired and mitigating incidents before they occur. In theory, minimizing unfair labor practices using a combination of both punishments and administrative relief is ideally effective. However, in reality, it is worth considering that the two measures are not able to achieve their purpose properly because there are many cases in which they are incompatible. When reviewing legislative history, Japan—which operates under a similar system of unfair labor practices to Korea—no longer has regulations that directly punish these practices. Japan has already recognized the limitations of punishment measures and has turned focus instead to administrative relief. In such an environment, several issues were mentioned supporting the transition. First, the definition of unfair labor practices was unclear and was ineffective in determining the components of these crimes. The criminal penalty was also unable to provide essential restitution for unfair labor practices. Finally, in the few cases actually punished, processing was delayed under the punishment measure. As a result, criminal punishment for unfair labor practices was clearly recognized as an unsuitable means of protection for workers in Japan. This research examined the unconstitutionality of the punishment clause for unfair labor practices and confirmed that it is time for Korea to actively discuss its abolition to improve the effectiveness of the unfair labor practice system.

중국 노동정치의 변화와 임금단체협상제도: 쟁점과 한계

장윤미 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2014 중소연구 Vol.38 No.2

Since the reform of labor for economic growth, the Chinese government has tried to solve the conflict of labor relations within the framework of the law, and in recent years, it has actively pursued ‘wage collective bargaining system’ where in wage increases and income redistribution in accordance with policies expanding the domestic market. In this progress, the labor policy is in turn from 'developing at the cost of labor' to 'developing labor protection as strategic means' direction. Local governments, which enforce the wage collective bargaining institution, are actively involved in recent conflicts of industrial relations and began to sort out the relationship. The speed and extent of such policy is appearing differently according to the areas. Typically comparing Zhejiang and Guangdong Province, Guangdong can be called a ‘collective bargaining by riot’ model that collective action of workers as a means of pressure can promote collective bargaining. On the other hand, Zhejiang can be called a ‘collective bargaining by state’ model that the local government makes a collective bargaining in advance, leading to a stable composition of the labor market. In other words, the 'social movement' of the collective behavior has played an important role led to collective bargaining in Guangdong Province, and the ‘institution’ modified by the government-led beforehand can expand a stable collective bargaining in Zhejiang Province. It is important to promise labor´s three primary rights to execute the collective bargaining system substantially. However, the collective bargaining institutions based on the current system can be easy to formalize in the process of implementation because the strengthen labor rights measures conflicts with the system characteristics. China has a dilemma that the changing labor’s needs can not be solved within the framework of the existing formula, and it can not promote a transformational change to operate new essential formulas. It seems to be very important that China's labor issues will open a new way of the future development, but if the labor force is ‘substantially’ does not enhance, it will be very difficult to realize the strategy of labor protection in connection with the adjustment of development way. 개혁시기 중국 정부는 경제성장을 위한 노동의 안정적 토대를 마련하고자 시장 경제라는 조건에서 형성되는 새로운 노동관계를 법의 틀 내에서 해결하려 노력해왔고, 최근에는 내수확대 방침에 따라 임금인상이나 소득재분배를 위한 ‘임금단체협상제도’를 적극 추진하고 있다. 이에 따라 노동에 대한 정책 역시 기존의 ‘노동을 희생으로 한 발전’에서 ‘노동보호를 발전의 전략적 수단으로 삼는’ 방향으로 전환되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 임금단체협상제도를 실행하는 주체는 지방정부로 최근 노사관계 갈등에 적극적으로 참여해 관계를 조정하기 시작했고, 이러한 속도와 정도는 지역마다 다르게 나타나고 있다. 대표적으로 광둥과 저장성을 비교해보면, 광둥의 경우 노동자의 집단행동이 단체협상의 압력수단으로 작동하는 ‘소요에 의한 단체협상(collective bargaining by riot)’ 모델이라 할 수 있고, 반면 저장의 경우 지방정부가 사전에 단체협상을 이끌면서 안정적인 노동시장을 조성하는 ‘정부에 의한 단체협상(collective bargaining by state)’ 모델이라 할 수 있다. 즉 광둥에서는 집단행동이라는 ‘사회적 운동’이 단체협상을 이끌어내는데 중요한 역할을 하고,저장의 경우 정부주도에 의해 사전에 정비된 ‘제도’에 의해 안정적인 단체협상을 확대해나간다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 단체협상제도가 제대로 시행되려면 노동3권을 명확히 해야 하지만, 이러한 노동권 강화 조치는 체제적 특징과 충돌하기 때문에 현 체제를 기반으로 한 단체협상제도는 추진과정이나 집행과정에서 형식화될 수밖에 없다. 노동의 변화된 요구를 기존의 틀 내에서 해결할 수 없고 또한 새로운 처방법을 실질적으로 작동하게 하기 위한 체제 변혁도 할 수 없다는데 중국의 딜레마가 놓여있다. 향후 노동의 쟁점은 중국 발전의 새로운 길을 여는데 중요한 역할을 할 것으로 보이지만, 노동의 힘이 ‘실질적으로’ 강화되지 않는 한 발전방식의 조정을 노동보호와 연계한 전략을 실현하기란 대단히 어려워 보인다.

중국 노동정치의 변화와 임금단체협상제도: 쟁점과 한계

장윤미(Youn Mi Jang) 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2014 중소연구 Vol.38 No.2

Since the reform of labor for economic growth, the Chinese government has tried to solve the conflict of labor relations within the framework of the law, and in recent years, it has actively pursued ‘wage collective bargaining system’ where in wage increases and income redistribution in accordance with policies expanding the domestic market. In this progress, the labor policy is in turn from ``developing at the cost of labor`` to ``developing labor protection as strategic means`` direction. Local governments, which enforce the wage collective bargaining institution, are actively involved in recent conflicts of industrial relations and began to sort out the relationship. The speed and extent of such policy is appearing differently according to the areas. Typically comparing Zhejiang and Guangdong Province, Guangdong can be called a ‘collective bargaining by riot’ model that collective action of workers as a means of pressure can promote collective bargaining. On the other hand, Zhejiang can be called a ‘collective bargaining by state’ model that the local government makes a collective bargaining in advance, leading to a stable composition of the labor market. In other words, the ``social movement`` of the collective behavior has played an important role led to collective bargaining in Guangdong Province, and the ‘institution’ modified by the government-led beforehand can expand a stable collective bargaining in Zhejiang Province. It is important to promise labor's three primary rights to execute the collective bargaining system substantially. However, the collective bargaining institutions based on the current system can be easy to formalize in the process of implementation because the strengthen labor rights measures conflicts with the system characteristics. China has a dilemma that the changing labor’s needs can not be solved within the framework of the existing formula, and it can not promote a transformational change to operate new essential formulas. It seems to be very important that China``s labor issues will open a new way of the future development, but if the labor force is ‘substantially’ does not enhance, it will be very difficult to realize the strategy of labor protection in connection with the adjustment of development way.

유니온숍협정제도의 헌법적 정합성에 관한 일고찰

강희원 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.3

Korean Trade Union and Labor Relation Adjustment Act art. 81, subpar. 2, pro. allows a employer to conclude the Union Shop Agreement with his company’s labor union which is represented by more than two-thirds of laborers in a business shop. However it is a question if this provision is conformable to art. 33. Korean Constitution in which so-called the labor’s three primary rights should be guaranteed. In this essay, I am trying to revalue normatively the constitutional conformity of this proviso clause, relating it with the recent changes of Korean Labor Society. And then I am asserting that this proviso clause of the Trade Union and Labor Relation Adjustment Act art. 81, subpar. 2 should be abolished because of the violation of the constitution.

공정으로서 노동3권의 시론

이달휴 한국비교노동법학회 2019 노동법논총 Vol.45 No.-

As the Fourth industrial Revolution began, social polarization more and more entrenched as a social problem, and machines are expanding the scope of replacing labor. Given this social environment, limitations arise that traditional labor law logic cannot solve these problems. As an alternative, it is necessary to study the theory of labor rights as a fairness. The first thing that comes to mind when you’re faced with word is the justice as fairness of John Rawls. There are many implication for the definition of a fairness, but the meaning of the fairness is as diverse and complex as the definition is. We need to materialize and clarify the meaning of fairness in this regard, and we looked at the meaning of fairness and the principle of fairness accordingly. In other words, fairness is the embodiment of justice and the virtue. Under the premise of this fair meaning. the principle of passive fairness, the principle of positive fairness and the principle of fair negotiation were put forward. And as we have applied this principle of fairness to labor law, it is the application of vertical fairness, the application of horizontal fairness and the application of procedural fairness. Under the positive law, the Fair Representative’s Duty Regulations were newly established after multiple labor unions were recognized under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The word of fairness was first stipulated in the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act as positive law. In addition to the Fair Representative’s Duty, the system related to fairness in the labor law is a system of unfair labor practices. meaning that the U.S. system of unfair labor practices was designed to establish fair order of labor-management relation. Specifically, it is designed to ensure competitive fairness. In sum, the labor basic right are mainly related to horizontal fairness, and the right of collective action is the logic of forming equal forces on the basis of the principle of protection for horizontal fairness.