賃金ピーク制と賃金削減、就業規則不利益変更と社会通念上の合理性

宋剛直(Song, Kang Jik) 한국비교노동법학회 2016 노동법논총 Vol.38 No.-

An author intend to introduce a wage peak、an extending the retirement age, a disadvantage change of the rule of employment in this article in Korea. Labor Standards Act Section 97(1) provides that where the rules of employment are modified unfavorably to wokres, an employer shall obtain worker’s consent. The Supreme Court of Korea has interpreted, however, that, even though the employer modifies the rules unfavorably without worker’s consent, and if the modify only has a rationality on social common notion, the modify shall be effective. Here I suggest this interpretation by the Court should be amended, so the modify without worker’s consent should be a nullity. By the way a retirement age is generally extended to the 60 ages by the Age Discrimination and Older Employment Promotion Act in Korea. Thereafter the Ministry of Employment and Labor(MEL) makes a guideline with respect to a wage peak system. The MEL suggests that an employer is able to modify the rules without worker’s consent through the rationality on social common notion held by the Court. Under these circumstances I expect and fear that the Court applies positively the rationality on social common notion against modifying the rules unfavorably without worker’s consent in future.

노동법학에서의 헌법학의 역할

송강직(Song Kang-Jik) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

본 연구는, 단체교섭창구단일화제도의 도입을 계기로, 헌법상 보장되고 있는 노동기본권의 의미가 실제로 노동법분야에서 충실하게 그 역할을 다하고 있는가 하는 관점에서 지면의 사정 등을 고려하면서, 채용단계에서의 차별, 해고, 사립학교교원에 대한 쟁의행위금지문제, 노동조합설립에 대한 제한, 단체교섭창구단일화제도, 쟁의행위와 형사책임, 부당노동행위의 원인경합에 대하여 필자의 사견의 입장에서 검토한 것이다. 결론을 간단하게 말하면, 현행법상 성별ㆍ연령ㆍ장애인에 한정된 채용단계에서의 차별을 원칙적으로 국적ㆍ종교ㆍ인종 등 모든 영역으로 확대되어야한다는 것, 해고시 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상 외에 불법행위책임에 대한 인정을 완화할 것, 경력사칭을 이유로 한 해고의 정당성판단을 엄격하게 할 것, 사립학교교원의 쟁의행위금지 폐지, 조동조합명칭사용제한과 신고증제도의 폐지를 통한 노동조합설립의 자유를 보장할 것, 유니언 숍 협정하에서 신규채용된 근로자의 단결선택권보장, 교섭창구당일화제도 운영과정에서 단결체 상호간의 평등한 취급, 쟁의행위가 노동법상의 조합원찬반투표 등의 절차위반을 이유로 위법한 것으로 되는 경우 사용자와의 관계에서는 당해 쟁의행위가 위법한 것으로 되지 않는다는 것, 근로자에 대한 정당한 이유에 의한 해고와 부당노동행위와의 원인경합시 해고가 정당한 경우로 인정되는 경우에도 부당노동행위에 대한 구제신청은 이와는 별도로 보장될 수 있다는 것이다. Whether fundamental rights in employment on the constitutional law are secured or not has very important meaning in interpreting statutes of labor. The Korean Constitution established in 1948 had secured the rights in Article 18. Even though the Constitution was amended nine times, the rights are still secured in Article 33. I take, however, an apprehension seriously with respect to introducing exclusive collective bargaining system especially in the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(LULRAA) amended on January 1, 2010. Under this circumstance, I intend to analyze some issues, that is, discrimination in employment, dismissal, fundamental rights in employment in public sector(including teacher in private sector), restriction on establishing union by the LULRAA, exclusive collective bargaining system, criminal responsibility in strike, unfair labor practice etc. in a point of view of fundamental rights in employment on the constitution. Furthermore, this paper has also another goal that congratulates Kim, Hyo-Jeon Professor(who is my teacher since a bachelor process of me in Dong-A University and is become a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Republic of Korea on July 9, 2010) on his retirement under the age limit. Conclusions from this article are as follows: ① Discriminations in hiring employer's potential employees based on sex, age, disability are prohibited with an independent law each other in Korea. Because the discrimination by an employer is also against the human rights, the objects of discrimination in employment is extended towards general contracts of employment, and these kinds of discrimination should be prohibited in principle. ② The Supreme Court of Korea holds that an employer's termination of the contract of employment on the basis of a false record applied for the job by an employee specifically was lawful in general in the event of dismissal cases. These kinds of the termination of the contract, however, have been motivated substantially by its employee's union activities, and then an employer's terminating the contract because of the false record should be deemed to have violated generally a justice cause clause for dismissal in Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. ③ All teachers excluding Professors in College or University has the right to organize, to collective bargaining, and to conclude collective agreements, but is still prohibited from entering into strike. The right to strike of the teachers in private sector specifically, however, should be recognized through amendment of a statute concerned. ④ According to the ULRAA, an union is never to be lawful without reporting on establishment of the union against administrative authority and getting certification from the authority. In that case, the union is prohibited from using the name of the union with criminal liability. Those restrictions on establishing union in the ULRAA also should be repealed as soon as possible. ⑤ The Supreme Court holds that a requirement of two thirds in Article 81(2) is an effective requirement to make union shop agreements between union and an employer or its association. Where the employer forces an newly employee who is employed newly to choose the union of the party to the agreements, however, it should be construed as unfair labor practices. Thus, when an employee is employed under union shop agreements, if the employee choose another union that is not a party to the union shop agreements, his(her) right to choose union should be respected fully. ⑥ An exclusive collective bargaining system can be construed as an unconstitutional system prominently against fundamental rights in employment on the constitution. According to a traditional interpretation of the rights to organize among the fundamental rights, an equal treatment between unions by employer has been recognized. So a principle of the equal treatment between unions should be reflected on operating the

한국에서의 4차 산업혁명시대와 노동법 논의

송강직(Song, Kang Jik) 한국비교노동법학회 2020 노동법논총 Vol.49 No.-

4차 산업혁명 진전되는 인공지능 시대 노동법제 논의가 필요한 과제는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 향후 폭발적으로 증가가 예상되는 플랫폼 노동을 수행하는 노무제공자를 노동법상 근로자로 인정할 수 있을 것인가의 문제이다. 입법론적 대응이 중요할 것이며, 특히 산업재해보상보험법상 대응이 우선될 필요가 있다. 둘째, 고용시장의 다변화와 밀접하게 관련되어 근로제공방식의 다양화에 대한 문제다. 이에 따라 다양한 사용자를 위해 노무를 제공하거나 근로자 1인의 독자적 형태의 노무제공으로 다른 근로자와 접촉이 희박화되며 또 이들 중 상당수가 높은 전문성을 가지기도해 경제적인 측면에서도 사회적으로 보호 필요성이 낮을 수도 있다. 다른 한편 보유한 전문자격이나 역량이 중간형태인 근로자의 경우 대량 실직의 위험에 놓여있어 이에 대한 대응도 필요하다. 따라서 다양성과 다변화를 고려한 맞춤형 입법정책적 논의가 중요하다. 셋째, 근로기준법상 제도의 변화이다. 대표적으로 근로시간을 기초로 한 다양한 제도들이 여기에 해당된다. 고정적인 1일 상한 근로시간의 유연화, 휴식시간의 명확한 보장 등이 디지털 노동환경에서는 요구될 수 있어 이에 대한 제도적 접근도 고민이 필요하다. 넷째, 노조법상의 제도의 변화이다. 노동조합의 조직률 저하 및 그에 따른 노동조합 역할의 감소가 노동현장에서 변화하는 노동환경에 대응하는 능력에 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 그리고 근로자대표제도의 재정립을 통해 근로조건 결정 시스템의 제도적 고민도 사업장 단위로 고려해야 한다. 마지막으로 산업안전보건 분야이다. 디지털 노동환경 시대, 업무와 휴식간의 경계의 불명확성, 프로젝트형 근로제공의 증가로 근로자의 건강권 보호가 중요한 이슈가 된다. 현재의 산업안전보건법의 적절한 적용과 조치 이행도 필요하며 변화된 환경을 고려한 법제 정비도 필요하다. Labor law issues of the 4th industrial revolution in South Korea are as follows: First, it is a diversification of the labor market, that is, a platform labor, project-type work etc. An employee who offers his or her work in the platform labor market is not within a scope of worker on the current Labor Standards Act. So the protection of these workers will be followed by legislative discussions such as the LSA or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Second, some workers will be highly regarded for their expertise. These workers will generally be judged as strong in their relationships with it employer. Furthermore it is likely to lead to a weakening or dilution of trade union’s role in the workplace. Simultaneously, because non-regular workers will be a majority of the labor market, the problem of reforming the social insurance system will also arise. Third, the separation of work and relaxation will not become clear following the emergence of hyper-connected societies in the era of the 4th industrial revolution. The eight-hour ceiling on daily working hours will have to be abolished because the uniform upper limit on daily working hours will not be compatible with the reality of the provision of work. Instead, it is necessary to introduce a system that allows workers to take a certain amount of time off to protect their health in the event of a possible overload of their work. And there will also be a need for an institutional approach to severing the link from work to break time off. Forth reorganization of the worker representation system in workplace is necessary when considering the reality such as the reduction of the labor union’s organizational rate and the union’s role. Furthermore, as discussed in Japan, there will be a form of organization of labor union such as a craft union or a regional union. Finally, protection of workers’ right to health becomes an important issue due to the uncertainty of separation between work and rest time and the increase of project-type work. Here a role of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is also an important.

근로자의 경영참가와 과제

송강직(Song, Kang Jik) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.50 No.-

우리나라의 근로자의 경영참가는 제도적으로는 「근로자참여 및 협력증진에 관한 법률」에의한 노사협의회제도를 들 수 있다. 그런데 이전의 「노사협의회법」에 의한 노사협의회제도가 도입될 당시에 기업별노동조합이라는 노동조합조직형태와의 역할 내지 활동의 중복성이 가장 큰 문제로 지적되었었다. 그런데 오늘날에도 노사협의회 제도의 운영상의 문제들에 대하여 지적되고 있는 가장 큰 문제는 노동조합활동과의 중복성이다. 그리고 노사협의회 제도상의 의결사항은 매우 미미한 정도이고, 이는 협의사항에 대한 의결이 가능하다고 하여 크게 다를 바가 없다. 본고는 입법론을 제안하기보다는 현재의 시점에서 우리나라에 근로자의 경영참가로 볼 수 있는 제도들을 고찰하는 것을 검토 내용의 중심으로 삼았다. 근로자 경영참가는 그 성격상 근로자 개인보다는 근로자집단이 근로자측의 경영참가 주체로 될 수 있는 것인데, 여기서 근로자측의 주체에 있어서는 근로자집단의 대표적 형태인 노동조합을 전제로 하였다, 따라서 먼저 근로자의 단결권 제한의 문제를 검토하고, 취업규칙의 불이익 변경과 관련한 대법원의 해석론상 문제, 단체교섭대상에서의 경영사항의 배제에 대한 검토, 단체협약 내용, 노사협의회 제도의 내재적 한계 및 운영상의 문제, 비정규직 근로자의 경영참가 문제에 대한 판례법리 등을 검토하였다. 끝으로 근로기준법 제4조의 근로조건 결정에서의 근로자와 사용자의 동등한 지위에서 자유의사에 따라 결정하여야 한다는 기본원칙을 강조하였다. An author intend to introduce a worker’s participation in management in Korea. I focus on the case law with respect to the worker’s participation and worker’s council system. Conclusions are as follows: First a worker’s freedom of association is not completely secured, and then a right to organize should be recognized to all worker. Now an independent worker could not establish a union. Second the Labor Standards Act provides that where an employer changes unfavorably rules in workplace to its employees, the employer has to get a agreement of the employee side concerned. The Supreme Court of Korea holds, however, that the employer could change the rules without the agreement above. Such an interpretation by the Court should also be criticized especially in the light of a worker’s participation in management. Third the Court holds that a decision of a mass dismissal, a part closing plant and reconstruction by an employer is not a mandatory object. This interpretation by the Court should also be criticized in the light of a worker’s participation above. Forth it is that a role between the Labor Management Council System and a Union at a enterprise level is not completely separated each other. Because most of all unions is a company union in Korea, simultaneously the Council is also established a enterprise level. Accordingly the Council System that is a typical system as a worker’s participation in management does not take a role of the expectation of the Labor Management Council Act. Finally there are not a official worker’s participation in management for non-regular workers or temporary workers in Korea. So a new system of the participation in management for these worker should be established.

단체교섭거부와 형사책임 법리에 대한 고찰

송강직(Song, Kang Jik) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2020 江原法學 Vol.59 No.-

단체교섭거부에 대한 형사책임 문제는 고의성 등의 관점에서 볼 때에 다른 사용자의 지배 개입 등의 부당노동행위와 달리 논란의 여지가 있다고 할 수 있다. 여기서 단체교섭거부와 형사책임의 문제에 대하여 일본과 비교하면서 단체교섭거부의 부당노동행위와 형사처벌 문제를 고찰한 결과를 보면 다음과 같다. 법리적으로 볼 때에 노사 간의 사실행위인 단체교섭에 대하여 형사처벌 대상으로 삼았다는 것은 처음부터 제도의 설정으로서 바람직하지 않다는 것이다. 또한 헌법 제33조 제1항은 근로자의 단체교섭권을 보장한다고 하고 있으나, 피해고자집단, 쟁의단 등과 같은 근로자집단도 단체교섭의 주체로서 인정할 수 없다고 할 수는 없을 것인데, 이들 근로자집단은 헌법상 단결체임에도 불구하고 노조법상 노동조합 설립신고 절차를 거치지 않은 단체이므로 부당노동행위제도를 이용할 수 없다고 볼 것인데, 부당노동행위 유형과 관련한 정당한 이유가 없는 단체교섭거부에 대한 형사책임은 적용된다 해석할 수 있을 것인가 하는 문제도 남는다. 이를 부정한다면 단체교섭거부와 형사책임에 있어서 헌법상 근로자의 단결체와 노조법상의 노동조합과의 사이에 형평성이 결여되는 것으로 볼 것이다. 이는 형사처벌의 불명확성의 예라고 볼 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 하나의 사업 또는 사업장 단위 내의 복수노동조합의 경우에 교섭창구단일화 절차를 거쳐 제1의 노동조합을 교섭대표노동조합으로서 확정 공고한 이후에 제2의 노동조합이 출현하는 경우에 사용자의 단체교섭 상대방으로서의 노동조합 특정이 대법원과 행정해석에 있어서 차이가 있다는 점도 단체교섭 거부와 형사책임 추궁에서의 불명확성을 찾아볼 수 있다. 단체교섭과 관련한 부당노동행위의 성립 여부를 판단함에 있어서 특히 성실한 교섭이행인가 아닌가 하는 것이 문제인데 이는 단체교섭거부라고 하는 범죄의 구성요건의 명확성을 현저하게 결여하는 것이다. 결론적으로 정당한 이유가 없는 단체교섭거부에 대하여는 형사처벌보다는 민사소송상의 단체교섭거부 금지의 가처분 신청, 부당노동행위에 대한 노동위원회에 의한 구제제도, 나아가 불법행위에 의한 손해배상 등의 책임 추궁으로 해결하는 것이 바람직하다는 것이다. 적어도 명확성의 결여 등의 관점에서 볼 때에 단체교섭거부와 같은 부당노동행위 유형에 대한 형사처벌은 폐지할 필요가 있다. An author proposes a legislative theory with respect to employer’s criminal responsibility against refusing to collective bargaining without just cause through a comparative study between South Korea and Japan. Criminal penalties against employer’s refusing of collective bargaining shall be repealed. The basis is as follows: First, there is no particular difference between Korea which provides criminal penalties for unfair labor practices and Japan which does not have such a criminal punishment in the court’s standards on the refusal of collective bargaining. In legal terms, it is undesirable to make a criminal penalties against employer’s refusing of collective bargaining of the factual act. Second, Article 33(1) of the Constitution guarantees workers’ right to collective bargaining. But the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA) provides a rule that seems to prescribe labor unions in the subject of collective bargaining and a strike. Here temporary workers’ groups, such as a group of fired person, cannot use the unfair labor practices system because they have not registered to establish a labor union by the Act. Under these circumstances, the employer shall not be charged with criminal liability based on refusing of collective bargaining against the group. As a result there is an injustice between these groups and labor union established by the Act in employer’s criminal penalties above. Third, even high-ranking experts in labor-management relations cannot easily judge whether unfair labor practice are or not. This is especially true in the interpretation of sincere negotiations. Employers’ refusing of collective bargaining has also, furthermore, a strong negative nature. Finally, rather than criminal punishment, it is desirable to seek an injunction to refusing of collective bargaining, a remedy system by the Labor Commission for unfair labor practices, and further to claim for damages for tort etc.

일본에서의 산업별 단체교섭 당사자 및 교섭방식

송강직(Song, Kang-Jik) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.3

Article 33 of the Korean Constitution protects employees' right to bargain collectively(with its employer or its employers association) as one of workers' fundamental rights to promote their labor conditions. The Article 28 of the Japanese Constitution also protects the employees' right. Under these Constitutional Clauses, all of the labor unions are organized plant by plant or company by company in both Korea and Japan. Generally, those types of unions are called ""Company Unions"". The movement to establish industrial level union, however, is going on especially in Korea. In the end, Korea Metal Workers' Union(it has 150,000 members) had been organized on February in 2001. It is not yet until 5 years later to establish Metal Industry Employers Federation that will have the status of a party to a Collective Bargaining. The M.I.E.F. was established on April in 2006. Even though it has very simple contents, the first Collective Agreement in the nation-wide industrial level has been ratified between the K.M.W.U. and the M.I.E.F.. Then, what happens in Japan for those matters? This article intended to study the parties to a collective bargaining on the industrial level in Japan. To study the parties in Japan, above all, I have introduced statute which has its stance against a collective bargaining and a collective agreement in both public sector and private sector. Second, I haven seen actual states of the parties to a collective bargaining. Third, I have analyzed types of collective bargaining. Finally, I have noted relationships or differences between a voluntary Labor Management Council and a Collective Bargaining system in Japan. From the point of view of the parties to collective bargaining in a nation-wide industrial level, I was able to conclude my research as follows; ① Now, in general, there is no Collective Bargaining on the industrial level in Japan. Because this conclusion has been known well as one of the extraordinary aspects of Japanese Collective Bargaining Systems, it was important to be able to confirm the conclusion again as a distinctive feature of the Japanese Collective Bargaining in this article. ② The effort of the nation-wide Employers' Federation in Japan to maintain a very strong policy line to keep a traditional Collective Bargaining Practice that an employer only bargain with its company union is not effective yet, but it will still be continued in the future. Simultaneously, it should be also emphasized that a Company Union and it's members in Japan also want to bargain with it's own employer. ③ Even though Employers' Federation in Japan regards a voluntary Labor Management Council as an important system to keep or enhance its good relationship with its employees' union or its employees, the system itself does not play an important role within a company in accordance with its expectation. ④ Finally, the trend that Japanese Labor Unions are being merged to resolve their financial difficulty and promote their bargaining power is remarkable. Furthermore White-color Unions are now being organized in the form of regional unit or national unit, and the fact that they also have a status to bargain with their member's employer is noteworthy.

동일가치노동 동일임금원칙과 한국적 과제

송강직(Kangjik Song) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2009 江原法學 Vol.28 No.-

I intended to study “equal pay for work of equal value” through comparisons of the UN and ILO, Japan, France, EU, and South Korea in this article. Conclutions from this article are as follows: First, It will be allowed to say that progress on the legal and institutional fronts in many countries has been noteworthy and non-discrimination and equality provisions in labor laws that have recently been adopted or reformed. It is also true that, despite major advances in fighting income or job opportunity discrimination between men and women at workplace, unequal pay or employment practices are still being continued at work in many countries. Second, under these discrimination practices, many countries have enacted affirmative action systems in their labor codes respectively. They have, of course, same or similar aims of removing various discriminations in their societies. Third, in uneven pay case, the concept of “work of equal value” lies at the heart of pay discrimination acts in South Korea. General comparisons between two jobs carrying unequal pay will not suffice to establish that work is equal; rather, demonstrating the discrimination demands specific showing of equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility, as well as performance under similar working conditions as in the EPA in US. It is notable that once an inequality is found, however, it cannot be remedied by a reduction in the wages of the higher paid sex. Fourth, once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, even though the employer has affirmative defenses in unequal pay discrimination case, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employment practice fits within one or more of employer's affirmative defenses. There are, in general, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production and a differential based on any factor other than sex in the employer's defenses. Finally, how to reduce, and remove pay or employment discrimination practices at work between men and women? According to “New ILO Global Report” in 2007, it said that “a key measure of women's improvement is the availability of good quality jobs for women in legislative, senior official or managerial(LSOM) positions with higher participation rates indicating a reduction of discriminatory barriers”. I think also that it was a good suggestion, and is now available. At the same time, first of all, it will be important for us(men especially) to throw away stereotypes against women, or ancient and outmoded believes that a man should be paid more than a woman even though his duties are the same in South Korea especially.

일제 강점기하의 한국내의 쟁의행위와 재일한국인 쟁의행위 비교

송강직(Song, Kang-Jik) 한국법사학회 2007 法史學硏究 Vol.35 No.-

일제 강점기의 노동쟁의 또는 쟁의행위는 어떠한 목적과 수단으로 행하여졌는가. 한국내의 쟁의행위와 재일 한국인 근로자에 의한 쟁의행위와의 사이에 그 목적이나 수단에 있어서 차이는 있었는가. 일제강점기하의 노동분쟁에 대한 적용 법령이 한국 내의 근로자와 재일 한국인 근로자 사이에 차이가 있었는가. 본고는 노동법적인 관점에서 이들 문제들에 대한 고찰로서 국내에서도 시론적인 것이라고 할 수 있다. 물론 필자로서도 일제강점하의 노동법제 및 노동운동과 관련하여 처음으로 연구한 것인데, 그 결론적인 것을 보면 다음과 같다. 먼저, 공통적인 점으로, 한국에서의 파업과 일본 내에서의 쟁의행위 사이에 그 목적 및 수단에 있어서는 큰 차이가 없다는 것, 한국인 근로자와 일본인 근로자와의 사이에 임금차별이 상존하고 있었다는 것, 쟁의행위의 해결에 있어서 노동기본권적 측면이 아닌 일반사회유지 차원에서 접근하고 있다는 점 등을 들 수 있다. 즉 일본 내에서든 한국에서든 쟁의행위에 대하여 거의 예외 없이 경찰권력이 개입하고 있고, 모순되게도 그 해결의 주역도 경찰이 담당한 경우가 많이 있었다는 것이다. 다음으로, 다른 점을 보면, 재일 한국인 근로자들은 일본 내에서 생활하고 있었기 때문에 법의 적용면에서 한국인 근로자와 다른 면이 있었다는 것, 민족적 이질감과 근로자로서의 연대에 있어서의 차이, 재일 한국인 근로자들은 쟁의행위와 관련하여 일본 경찰에 검거되어 한국으로 送國되는 경우가 있었다는 것 등을 들 수 있다. 끝으로, 한국에서의 근로자와 일본 내의 한국인 근로자들 사이의 공통점과 차이점 외에도, 크로즈드 숍 협정 요구, 보이콧, 연대파업, 파업해결금 지급, 파업해결과 함께 단행된 파업지도자 석방, 남녀차별금지, 민족적 차별금지 등, 오늘날의 쟁의행위 이론에서도 시사하는 바가 많다는 것이다. What were objectives and means of the strikes in Korea and Japan under the era of colonization by Korean workers? Were there some differences in objectives and means of strikes between workers in Korean peninsular and land of Japan? What kinds of statutory frames were applied to those strikes? Those are the questions that this article tries to answer. It might be arguably said that this article is the first one to analyze the strikes of the period in the light of Korean labor law. It should be acknowledged that comparative research in this article on strikes between Korea and Japan during the colonization period is the first opportunity for author. In conclusion, common features of the strikes of two places are as follows: First, the strikes all had same objectives to promote their typical labor conditions, i.e.; wage, working hours, etc. It should be noted that there existed discrimination of wage between Korean workers and Japanese workers, in Korea and in Japan, respectively. Second, police authority interfered with almost all strikes. At the same time, many disputes including strikes between employer and employee were being settled by mediation being involved by police authority, not by court. Differences of strikes between in Korean peninsular and Japan, on the other hand, as follows: First, the Acts to be applied to each area was different. There were Acts sum as labor Act that were applicable to Korean workers in Japan, but were not applicable to Korean workers in Korean peninsular. For example, Factory Act is such an example as was applied discriminatively. In the meantime, some Acts were only applicable to Korean workers working in Korean peninsular. Second, Korean workers in Japan failed to form solidarity with Japanese workers notwithstanding the fact that they were the employees employed in a same work place. Third, in case when Korean workers in Japan violated law, they could be sent back to Korea. Finally, this comparative analysis is suggestive to research on current issues of Korean labor law such as closed shop agreement clause, boycott, sympathy strike, sexual discrimination, national discrimination, etc.

민주법학과 노동법학 방법론

송강직 ( Kang Jik Song ) 민주주의법학연구회 2010 민주법학 Vol.0 No.42

쟁의행위와 손해배상

송강직(Song, Kang-Jik) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2014 東亞法學 Vol.- No.64

쟁의행위와 손해배상 문제에 대하여 다음과 같은 내용의 제안을 하였다. 첫째, 손해배상 책임 귀속주체의 명확화이다. 개인 근로자 내지 조합원의 불법적인 기물손괴 등의 행위가 아닌 한, 쟁의행위 참가자 개인 및 노동조합의 책임을 부정하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 강제적인 노동이 금지된다는 것, 노동기본권의 실질적인 부정, 근로자의 생존권 보장, 책임의 형평성, 노사관계의 안정화 등이 그 이유이다. 둘째, 손해배상액의 산정기준이다. 위법한 쟁의행위에 대한 손해배상액 산정에 있어서, 고도의 불법 내지 부당, 사용자측의 쟁의행위 유발책임 등을 손해배상 산정에 있어서 특수한 사정으로 고려하여야 한다고 생각한다. 셋째, 손해배상명령의 집행상의 문제이다. 손해배상액이 산정이 된 경우 손해배상명령 집행 단계에서 노동조합 재산등에 대한 일정한 제한을 가하는 것이다. 노동조합간부를 포함한 노동조합의 재산 등에 대한 집행에 있어서 적어도 후자인 노동조합 재산에 대하여는 조합비 등의 노동조합재산에 대하여 임금채권에 대한 제한과 같이 일정 부분을 제한하는 것이다 넷째, 가압류 문제이다. 가압류를 제한하는 방식은 법질서 전체의 조화의 관점에서 볼 때에 노동사건에 대한 특별한 제한으로서 그 실현 가능성이 크지 않다고 생각된다. 다만, 근로관계가 존속되고 있는 상황에서라면 사용자의 자신의 근로자에 대한 손해배상 보전을 위한 가압류에 있어서 피보전권리는 존재한다고 하더라도 매월 정기적으로 임금을 지급하는 관계가 유지되므로 과연 이 경우까지 권리보전의 필요성을 인정하여야 하는가에 대하여는 부정적 입장을 취한다. 다섯째, 입법개정안이다. 판례법리에서 말하는 위법한 쟁의행위에는 단순한 노무공급 중단도 포함되어 있다는 점에서, 위법한 쟁의행위와 손해배상청구의 대상이 되는 위법한 쟁의행위를 구별하는 것이 중요하다고 생각한다. 노조법 제3조(손해배상 청구의 제한)를, “사용자는 단체교섭 또는 쟁의행위 그 밖의 노동조합의 활동으로 손해를 입은 경우에 노동조합 및 근로자에 대하여 그 배상을 청구할 수 없다. 다만, 폭력이나 파괴행위로 인하여 발생한 손해에 대하여는 그러하지 아니하다.”는 전국민주노동조합총연맹의 개정안에 찬성한다. 그러나 그 외 전국민주노동조합총연맹의 개정안에 대하여는, 위법한 쟁의행위의 경우에는 제3자와의 관계에서 손해배상 문제는 발생할 수 있다는 것, 위법한 쟁의행위로 인한 손해배상은 일반 채권의 보전의 수단으로서의 성격을 갖는 가압류를 배제할 수 없다는 것, 쟁의행위를 주도한 노동조합 간부의 책임은 다른 법 영역과의 형평의 관점에서 현실적으로 부정하기 곤란하다는 것에서 찬성하기 어렵다. 나아가 손해배상청구액의 집행에 있어서 특히 노동조합의 재산에 대하여는 단결권 보장의 관점에서 2분의 1정도로 제한할 것을 제안한다. A problem of compensation with respect to an unlawful strike is recently very serious social problems in Korea. In this article, the author suggest to amend Trade Union and Labor Realtions Adjustment Act(TULRAA) Sention 3. Conclusions of the suggestion are as follows: First, damages for the unlawful strike must be concretely calculated by an adequate causation between the unlawful strike and the compensation, simultaneously a Court should take account of all circumstances of both sides of an employer and an employee those gave rise to the unlawful strike in calculating damages. Second, in compulsory execution to recover damages ordered by a Court, certain portions of the Union properties should be protected from the execution to secure activities of the Union. Third, the author thinks that a necessity of preservation of a right is generally not recognized in getting a decision of a provisional seizure. That is, it is because the necessity of preservation of the right in between an employee and its employer who is under an employment of contract is very thin or not recognized. Finally, in case of the means of the strike was lawful, those who participated in the strike and(or) the Union should be exempted from a responsibility of compensation against an employer concerned, even though the objects or procedures of the strike were unlawful.