부당노동행위 의사에 관한 대법원의 판례법리

송강직 효성여자대학교 법정연구소 1998 법정연구 Vol.5 No.-

「勞動組合 및 勞動關係調整法」 과 爭議行爲論

송강직 효성여자대학교 법정연구소 1997 법정연구 Vol.4 No.-

Ⅰの「序說」では,憲法上團體行動權(スト權)が保障される主體について見た. そこでスト權か禁止される者として非現業公務員, 敎員, 主要防衛産業體に勤務する者の中の一定の者が あることがわかった. 從って本稿で論ずる「スト論」は直接的には右の者を除いた勞動者と關聯するものといえる, Ⅱの「爭議行爲の槪念」では,「勞動組合及勞動關係調整法」(以下,單に'勞使關係法'と いう)上の爭議行爲の機念を見た. 爭議行爲の槪念を明らかにするためにはまず勞動爭議の機念を考奈しなければならなぃ. 勞使關係法における勞動爭議とはいわゆる利益紛爭を巡ぐる紛爭に限ぎられ, 權利紛爭はそこに含まらなぃということである.權利紛爭, 特に勞動協約の解釋または履行方法を巡ぐる意見の不一致が生じ티場合は協約の當事者雙方等が勞動委員會にその 見解の提示を求めることはできるが,右の見解は勞動協約と同一の效力を有することになリ當事者はそれに拘束される. そして爭議行爲の機念を見る中で「順法スト」と「職場閉鎖」の正當性に關して私見を述べた. Ⅲの「爭議行爲の正當性」では,政治ストの正當性にっいて見た.政治ストの正當性を巡ぐる問題は勞動法學において最も議論の激しい所であり古から論じられてきたものである. 勞使關係法おいては勞動組合の政治活動の禁止規定が制除されたことの意味をも考え合わせながら政治ストの正當性の議論も論ずるべきであることを提起した. そして今日のょうな複雜な社會狀況の下では政治ストは勞動者の國民として勞動者として,社會の中で,さらに使用者との自由·平等の觀點から, その正當性は認められるべきであるとの見解を示した.それで勞使關係法 第2條6號でいう「勞動關係當事者」には少なくとも政治ストの正當性を論ずる場合においては勞使の外に國家も含まれると解釋したのである Ⅳの「勞使關係法上の爭議行爲制限(禁止)」では勞使關係法における爭議行爲の制限(禁止)の內容とその解釋を行なった. Ⅴの「小括」では,爭議行爲を行なうことのできる主體について整理するとともに, 政治ス トの正當性が認められるためには政治ストが「使用者の解決のつかなぃ爭議行爲」であるというその待殊性にかんがみて次ぎのょうな條件が滿たされなければならないことを提案した. 卽ち政治ストがその正當性を得るためには原則的に10日以內という短期的.一時的に行なわれなければならなぃということである. また政治ストが勞使關係法上の爭議行爲であるがゆえに同 法との緊扱調整の決定の對象になることを指摘した.

日本 勞動法의 動向과 課題

宋剛直 釜山外國語大學校 比較法硏究所 1997 比較法學 Vol.8 No.-

공공부문과 민주법학 ; 철도산업 사유화관련 법안의 문제점

송강직 민주주의법학연구회 2003 민주법학 Vol.23 No.-

단결권의 현대적 의의

송강직,윤상우 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2023 江原法學 Vol.71 No.-

헌법에서 근로자의 단결권 등 노동3권을 보장과 노동조합 설립신고제도를 중심으로 단결권의 보장 방향과 그에 따른 입법론을 제안하고자 한다. 필자의 주장을 요약하면, 첫째, 단결권은 결사의 자유의 연장선상에서 접근할 필요가 있다는 것이고, 따라서 군인, 경찰, 교정직, 소방직 등과 같은 특수한 예외적 경우를 제외하고는 단결 그 자체에 대하여는 완전한 자유를 보장하자는 것이다. 둘째, 법외노동조합의 법적 지위 논쟁은 우리나라 헌법재판소가 노조법상 노동조합설립신고 반려제도에 대하여 이를 합헌이라고 결정하였다고 하여 해소될 수 있는 것이 아니다. 그러나 근로자의 단결권 자체를 결사의 자유의 연장선상에서 자유롭게 이를 보장하는 경우에 이러한 논쟁을 예방할 수 있을 것이다. 셋째, 단결권 보장을 위하여 노조법상 노동조합 설립신고제도를 일본과 같은 자격심사제도 내지 등록제도로 변경하는 것이 단결권 보장의 방향에 비추어 볼 때에 바람직하다. 넷째, 노동조합 전임자 등에 대한 근로시간면제제도이다. 노동조합 업무의 대상은 기업별노동조합이 대부분인 우리나라의 특성을 고려하면서 신중하게 접근하여야 할 것이지만 노동조합의 활동 내용을 전혀 고려하지 아니하고 무조건으로 급여를 지원하는 것은 바람직하지 않다는 것이다. 다섯째, 근로자의 단결강제이다. 대법원의 해석론 등에 의하면, 특정노동조합으로의 가입을 강제하는 유니언 숍 협정이 체결되어 있다고 하더라도 근로자가 자신이 가입하고 싶은 노동조합을 선택하여 단결권을 일응 행사하는 경우에는 유니언 숍 협정은 해당 근로자에게는 효력이 미치지 않게 되고, 나아가 유니업 숍 협정 체결 당사자인 노동조합의 조합원이라고 하더라도 그 노동조합을 탈퇴하여 다른 노동조합에 가입하거나 심지어 해당 노동조합으로부터 제명되는 경우에는 제명 이후에 다른 노동조합을 가입하지 않더라도 이에 대하여 유니언 숍 협정의 효력은 미치지 않게 되기 때문이다. 이로써 유니언 숍 협정의 효력은 거의 상실되었다고 할 수 있다. 다만 노사가 근로자가 노동조합을 포함하여 어떠한 조직이라는 것에 가입하기를 원치 않는다고 한다면 조합비에 상응하는 금원을 자선단체 등에 기부함으로써 무임승차를 하지 않도록 하는 에이젼시 숍 협정을 체결하는 방안도 고려할만하다.

직장점거와 언론의 자유

송강직 東亞大學校 法學硏究所 2005 東亞法學 Vol.- No.37

경영상 이유에 의한 해고의 판례법리 검토

송강직,이병운 한국비교노동법학회 2018 노동법논총 Vol.44 No.-

The custom of employment in Korea is based on a lifetime employment system which guarantees a regular retirement age. The wage system is, furthermore, also based on proportion to the length of service rather than the performance-related pay system. Under these customs of employment, the interpretation is natural that a dismissal for managerial reasons should be strictly and narrowly restricted. Here authors intend to analyze and criticize the case law on dismissal for managerial reasons by the Supreme Court of Korea. Conclusions are as follows: First, Article 24(1) of the Labor Standard Act(LSA) provides that an urgent managerial needs is required to dismiss employee(s) for managerial reasons. The Supreme Court holds that a future managerial crisis is also included in an urgent managerial needs above. Authors suggest, however, that a future managerial crisis should not be included in the urgent managerial needs, because this requirement should be narrowly and strictly interpreted. Second, Article 24(3) of the LSA provides that an employer should consult in good faith with the representative of its employees to dismiss for managerial reasons. The Supreme Court holds that it is possible for an employer not to consult with the representative where a labor union or another employee’s organization is not. Authors suggest, however, that this consultant procedure should be interpreted as an absolute requirement by the LSA to dismiss for managerial reasons. So we suggest that the dismissal for managerial reasons is never be justified without the consultant procedure. Third, it is a definition of the representative. The Supreme Court holds that, where a dismissal for managerial reasons includes non-union members, the employer should consult with the representative of the non-union members. Authors suggest, however, even though the dismissal includes the non-union members or only non-union members, the employer could and should consult with the representative of its employees including non-union members. In this case, where the representative fails to represent in good faith the non-union members, the representative may take responsibility of civil liability etc. against the non-union members. Finally, Article 24(3) of the LSA also provides that an employer shall give a notice 50 days prior to dismissal day to the representative. The Supreme Court holds that, where the employer has a sufficient consultation with the representative, the employer could give a notice of shorter days than 50 days above. Authors suggest, however, that a notice 50 days prior to the dismissal day in principle should be kept. Of course after a notice of the 50 days above by the employer, both the employer and the representative could shorten a period of consultation by reaching an agreement.

일본의 서비스 산업에서의 산업재해 예방법리

송강직 한국사회법학회 2017 社會法硏究 Vol.0 No.33

Many industrial injuries in Service Industry occur in the third industry and in conveyance by land industry in Japan. The Government pursues many various policies to prevent industrial injury in the industries. An author intends to introduce the policies by the Government, and duties of an employer and its employee by the law. Conclusions are as follows: First, the Supreme Court of Japan holds that an independent employer could be an employee on the Labor Union Act. The employer generally performs an after service for consumer who had purchased goods from a big corporation. So he or she has a right to organize, bargains with its employer of the corporation collectively with respect to an unit price against his or her performing the service, and makes a collective agreement. Affairs about prevention of industrial injury could be included in the agreement. Second, the policies against an earthquake by the Government and a Local Government has close relations with the prevention of industrial injury. Where an earthquake occurs, because serious industrial injuries also inevitably occur. Third, the Government makes and issues many regulations to protect employees from industrial injuries. Furthermore it is notable that the Japanese keeps well the regulations. In practice industrial injuries in Japan have been reduced steadily and gradually in all industries. Forth, the Government pursues various policies to prevent the overwork suicide or a death from overwork. One of the policies is to shorten working hours. On the other hand the Industry Safety and Health Act introduces a interview instruction system to keep and to promote employees' mental health. Finally, the Government issues a guideline to prevent industrial injuries from a traffic accident. An industrial injury by a traffic accident is also serious in Japan. The guideline especially provides that a contractor or a consignor has also some duties to keep a driver's safety in the conveyance by land industry. 본 논문은 일본의 산업재해 예방과 관련한 법령 및 지침 등을 소개한 것이다. 특히 서비스 산업분야, 그 가운데서도 서비스 산업 분야에서 산업재해 발생률이 높은 제3차 산업과 육상화물운송사업을 중심으로 보았다. 제3차 산업인 서비스 산업에서의 산업재해 예방을 위한 매뉴얼, 지침, 그리고 심각한 사회적 문제를 야기한 과로사 내지 과로자살에 대한 정부의 노력 등을 고찰함으로써 그 특징을 보았다. 노동안전위생법상의 면접지도제도, 과로방지를 위한 특별법제정에 의한 국가 및 지반자치단체의 책무, 나아가 근로시간 단축 및 연추유급휴가 사용촉진 등의 과로방지에 대한 정부의 정책을 보았다. 육상화물운송사업에서의 산업재해 예방을 위한 교통산업재해 예방을 위한 가이드라인의 내용을 보았다. 자영업과 같은 사업자의 산업재해 보호의 논의의 필요성 관점에서 일본의 개인업무위탁계약에 의한 수탁자의 근로자성 문제, 이들 업무 종사자들이 노동조합법상 근로자라는 것에서 단체교섭 및 단체협약 체결을 통하여 적어도 제도적으로 산업재해 예방을 위한 제도이 설정이 가능하다는 것을 보았다. 그리고 일본의 경우 지진이라는 자연재해에 의한 산업재해와의 관련성을 보았다.

쟁의행위에 관한 최근 대법원 판례

송강직 노동법이론실무학회 2011 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.6

In this paper, I analyzed strike and the law which has been established by Supreme Court of Korea since 2009. In addition, I compared traditional case law of strike with one after 2009.I focused on some critical problems concerning the legitimate elements of strike such as strike objects of reduction of surplus labor, strike means and procedures on the「 Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act」(hereinafter referred to as TULRAA) and related criminal liability, etc. When compared to the traditional case law, it should be noted that the Supreme Court issued many different and new holdings in resent strike cases. These can be summarized as follows: ① Is a sit down strike in a lobby lawful in case of using the same oor of the same building with the third party? Traditionally, the Court has held that a sit down strike is lawful only when it is partial and nonexclusive within it's employer's premise. However, in a recent case, the Court held that the sit down strike constituted a criminal liability of invasion into a construction in relations with the third party. According to this holding, employees using the same oor with the third party do not virtually strike against it's employer. ② In general, the Court has held that the employees, even under lock out, are able to use facilities for union activity, dormitory, etc. However, in a recent case, the Supreme Court held that an employer can restrict his or her employees' access to their workplace during lock out, where facilities for union activity including dormitory are located in the same or adjacent place to the production facilities. The Supreme Court. of course, still hold that not only the employer has to offer his or her employees another replacement of facilities for union activity to restrict their access to the facilities but also there should be a reasonable cause to do it. It seems that there are no substantial changes in the Supreme Court's stance. In this regard, it can be said that the latter holding of the Supreme Court embodies a general principle regarding the employer's obligation in restriction on his or her employees' access to the facilities for union activity as well as the employees' right to use the facilities even under lock out. ③ When the Minister of Labor makes a decision to conduct emergency adjustment, a strike shall not be resumed until thirty days have passed from the date of publication of the decision in Korea(TULAAA, Sec. 76(1) and Sec. 77). According to the provisions, employees must stop the strike when the decision of the emergency adjustment is issued. Under this system, although an employer does not permit the employees to participate in protesting demonstration against the decision by national center union, some of them conducting the strike can participate in the protest meeting. The Supreme Court held that this kind of participation in protesting demonstration did not violate the prohibitions against strike after the publication of the decision. This case is worthy of note in that it is the rst case concerning stopping of a strike when the decision of emergency adjustment is issued. Under the Supreme Court's decision, a strike will be unlawful when a strike does not satisfy all requirements for legitimacy such as objects, means and procedural rules of strike in the TULAAA, In this case, the union officers usually receive criminal punishment in Korea. Even though the Supreme Court holds that all unlawful strikes should not be punished with criminal liability, I think the Supreme Court is firmly keeping this position now. Therefore, I would like to point out that a strike's legality, in principle, shall be judged only on it's objects and means. In my opinion, the procedural rules under the TULAAA have no direct relations to the employer and judgement of whether the strike is lawful or not. Furthermore, when workers stop offering their work force simply, the strike should not be regarded as a criminal liability.

노동분쟁해소기능의 실효성 제고 방안

송강직 노동법이론실무학회 2015 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.16

An author proposes some suggestions to promote the function of the Labor Commission in resolving labor disputes. The Commission has authority to make a remedy order or recommendation over wild labor disputes, that is, remedy order for unfair labor practice case or unfair dismissal case, discrimination against irregular or temporary worker, joint-collective bargaining representative or bargaining unit under plural unions, a duty of fair representative by a bargaining representative, and a collective labor dispute adjustment, etc. An author’s suggestions are as follow: First, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides a criminal penalty against an unfair labor practice. There is, however, no case that a prosecutor has accused an employer of an unfair labor practice. I suggest that a prosecutor should accuse an employer of an unfair labor practice where it is malicious or repeated. Simultaneously a freedom of speech by the employer should be respected. Second, the Commission generally does not recognize an unfair labor practice where a case involves both an unfair dismissal and an unfair labor practice. I suggest that the Commission should judge the dismissal case and the practice case each other, because they are different problems each other. Furthermore, the Commission should makes positive or flexible remedy orders including a post notice even in case of the dismissal. Third, the Korea Supreme Court hold that rights disputes and management objects could not be lawful objects of strike. Management objects mean a partial plant closing, mass dismissal, relocation etc. So it is notable that the Commission should extend a scope of adjustment in collective labor disputes to the rights dispute and management objects to resolve labor relations disputes. Finally, now the Commission only could make a remedy order for discrimination against irregular or temporary worker. But the Commission should also be able to make a remedy order for discrimination against sex, disability, and age through amendment of the Labor Commission Act. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the Commission should makes positive or flexible remedy orders including a post notice even also in discrimination case.