ILO 핵심협약 비준 관련 논의 경과와 과제

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2019 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.47

이 글은 국제노동기구(ILO) 제87호 협약과 제98호 협약 비준에 수반한 국내 노동관계법 개정을 위한 논의를 위하여 설치된 경제사회노동위원회 노사관계제도・개선관행위원회(이하 ‘위원회')의 설치, 구성, 논의 경과, 논의의 한계, 향후 전망을 다루고 있다. 노사정 및 공익위원으로 이루어진 위원회는 ILO 제87호 협약 및 제98호 협약 비준을 위하여 필요한 법개정 사항을 식별하고 개정 방향을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있었으나, 수차례에 걸친 회의에도 불구하고 이에 대한 합의에는 도달하지 못하였다. 이 글에서는 위원회 구성의 의의, 쟁점사항, 공익위원안이 도출된 경위, 의미 및 한계, 공익위원안에 대한 노사의 반응 등 관련 경위를 상세하게 검토함으로써 향후 ILO 핵심협약 비준과 국내법 정비를 위한 시사점을 모색하고자 하고 있다. 이 과정에서 노동관계법 개정을 위한 타협과 합의를 위한 사회적 대화는 ILO 핵심협약 비준이라는 분명한 목적에도 불구하고 정부의 의지나 전문가의 노력만으로는 부족하고 사회적 파트너인 노사의 전문 역량과 함께 노사단체의 확고한 조직상 의지가 선행되어야 한다는 것을 확인할 수 있다. This article tries to trace the background and debates of the ‘Committee for the Improvement of Laws, Measures, and Practices for Labor Relations Development'(‘Committee') established in the ‘Economic, Social, and Labor Council'. The Committee's main purpose is to identify the obstacles to the ratification of the Fundamental Conventions regarding the freedom of association in the International Labour Organization(‘ILO'), and to make recommendations for the amendment of labor legislation to the Korean Government as well as to the Parliament. Despite persistent efforts towards reaching the agreement between the Committee"s tripartite members, the Committee failed to reach the conclusions and make recommendations unanimously. Instead, the public members of the Committee have made several suggestions for making the draft bills in the field of the freedom of association. This article tries to clarify the assignment of the Committee, the main reasons why the Committee reached the impasse for agreement, the significance and limitations of the public members' recommendations, and its limits of the discussions in the Committee. In doing so, it is argued that the resulting consequences of the discussions in the Committee have major potential flaws, including but not limited to the lack of confidence, political will and commitment between the social partners, unstructured and unaccountable attitudes of the some members in the Committee, and misunderstanding of terms of reference by the parties in the Committee. To avoid similar mistakes, this article suggests the current tripartite dialogue system require urgent reforms in terms of the social dialogue structure, selection of members, firm commitment to the agenda by the social partners as well as government, extending public awareness to the fundamental labor rights and international labour standards, and strengthening the capabilities of social partners.

노조 전임자 근로시간면제제도의 쟁점과 과제

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2010 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.28

On Jan. 1, 2010 Korean Assembly enacted Amendment to the “Trade Union and Labor Relations Act 1997”(hereinafter referred as “TULRA”) which allows establishing multiple trade unions in an enterprise and limits the amount of union officials' time-off paid by the employer. This paper deals with the legal problems of newly introduced time-off system for union officials. In Korea, since most trade unions have been organized in an enterprise level, and therefore the size of trade unions is too small to burden the payment of their full-time union officials, there has been a wide consensus the existence of trade unions would be almost impossible without some financial assistance from the employer. However, widely spread practices of employer-paid full-time union officials have been constantly criticized by some academics and mainly by employers because the practices cause undue and excessive burden to operation of enterprises. I n considering these critics, the TULRA provisions that rule the relation between full-time union officials and payment by employer are radically changed from unlimited allowance of employer-paid full-time union officials to the time-off system. In the new system, newly-established 'Time-off System Deliberation Committee' which consists of 15 members including 5 employer members, 5 labor members, and 5 public members will set the amount of time-off. This paper suggests that this new system will fail to fulfill its purposes to reduce the amount of employer-paid full-time due to its some immanent limitations. Under the new system, since the amount set by the Committee cannot have direct binding effect on collective bargaining agreements, it rarely has the possibility to reduce the financial burdens of employer-side, and it would violate the autonomy of labor relations because it allows administrative authority to set the numbers and amount of time-off union officials that should be freely bargained by the trade unions and employers.

복수노조설립금지제도의 위헌성

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2007 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.23

TRADE UNION AND LABOR RELATIONS ADJUSTMENT ACT(TULLA) Article 5 provides that workers are free to establish a trade union or to join it. However, its Addenda Article 5 paragraph 1 provides in cases where a trade union exists in a business or workplace, a new trade union which has the same organizational jurisdiction as existing trade unions shall not be formed by December 31st, 2009, despite the provisions of TULLA Article 5. Therefore, the right to organize of employees depends on the extent to which the employees have organized until December 31st, 2009. This monopoly unionism system originated from 1947 when the United States Armed Forces in Korea(USAFIK) had promulgated the decree which allowed employees to organize only one union in an enterprise. Thereafter this policy has been succeeded by Korean Government. However, this policy do not coincide with the Korea Constitution Law. Article 33 paragraph 1 of the Korean Constitution Law provides that all employees have the right to orgnize, to bargain collectively, and to do concerted activities for achieving better terms and conditions of employment. TULLA Addenda Article 5 paragraph 1 infringes not only on the individual right to organize but also on the collective right to organize, since it prohibit employees who dissatisfy with current labor union from organizing different union. Furthermore, as it discriminate trade unions only based on the trade union's foundation time, which cannot be justified on objective grounds, it violates the principle of equal treatment which embodied in the Korean Constitution Law. In addition, although the new union can be established when it does not have the same organizational jurisdiction as existing trade union, the standard which allows organizing another union in an enterprise is not an appropriate means to present employees' interest. In short, when we consider the history of the monopoly union system, the relations between the end and the means to achieve it, and essential contents to be infringed by the system, TULLA Addenda Article 5 paragraph 1 violates the Korean Constitution Law.

EU와 미국에서의 노동

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2012 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.32

오랜 기간의 협상을 마치고 한-EU FTA는 2011년 7월 1일부터 잠정발효하였고, 한-미 FTA는 2012년 3월 15일부터 발효하게 된다. 두 FTA는 모두 노동기준에 관한 조항을 담고 있다는 점에서 우리나라가 지금까지 체결한 FTA와 차이가 있다. 이러한 차이는 모두 EU와 미국의 노동-무역 연계 정책의 변화 속에서 이해할 필요가 있다. EU는 2006년 이후 이른바 ‘새로운 세대의 FTA' 정책을 발표하고 FTA 협상에서 노동과 무역을 적극적으로 연계하는 정책을 제시하였다. 이에 따라 최초로 체결된 한-EU FTA는 ILO를 중심으로 한 국제노동기준이 협정문의 내용으로 포섭되어 있으며, 시민사회대화를 통해 여론의 압력에 의한 간접적인 이행강제가 도모되는 형태로 이루어져 있다. 한-미 FTA 역시 강력한 노동기준을 양자간 무역협정에 포함시키는 방향으로의 미국 통상정책이 2007년 5월 전환함에 따라 체결된 최초의 FTA이다. 한-미 FTA는 ILO의 핵심노동기준과 함께 미국식의 노동기준이 노동조항의 내용으로 수용되어 있으며, 법적 구속력을 가지는 이행강제메카니즘을 가지고 있는 점에서 특징이 있다. 이와 같이 한-EU FTA와 한-미 FTA 소정의 노동조항은 협상 상대방국가인 EU와 미국의 노동-무역 연계정책의 변화에 따라 체결되었다고 평가할 수 있다. 양 FTA의 노동조항에 관한 집행과 운영도 이러한 정책변화를 염두에 두고 접근할 필요가 있다. 양자간 협정을 통한 노동과 무역의 연계는 필연적으로 국제노동기준을 설정하는 기능을 수행하여 왔던 국제노동기구의 역할을 대폭적으로 수정하도록 하고 국제노동기준에 관한 국제적인 컨센서스를 변화시킬 가능성이 있다. The Free Trade Agreement between Korean and EU(‘Korea-EU FTA') has entered into force provisionally on 1 July 2011, and the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the United States(‘KORUS FTA') will be in force on 15 March 2012. Both FTAs are somewhat different from those FTAs that have been concluded by Korea, since these include clauses concerning labor standards, whereas those do not contain any labor standards clause. The difference can be well understood in the context of the policy change on EU and the United States' labor and trade issues. Since 2006, EU launched a new trade policy, which is known as ‘the New Generation of FTAs'. Its main purpose is to place labor issue on the highest negotiation object of FTAs which EU is undertaking. Korea-EU FTA is the first FTA that has been concluded under EU's new trade policy. The Chapter 13 (Trade and Sustainable Development) of the FTA contains various labor standards including 4 core labor standards which are enumerated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-ups, adapted by the International Labour Conference in 1998. The labor standards in the FTA dose not have legally binding effect. The enforcement of fundamental labor standards in Korea-EU FTA depends not on direct and binding mechanism but on indirect and political ways through cooperation and dialogue in the “Civil Society Forum” established by the FTA. KORUS FTA is also the first accomplishment of America's new trade policy titled “New Trade Policy for America” which was bipartisan agreement concerning trade and labor issues in the Democratic-led Congress. In KORUS FTA, although the U.S.-style term “internationally recognized labor rights” instead of more commonly used term, “core labor standards” as for the labor standards, it contains various restrictions on the exercise of discretion and the allocation of resources of the parties. Furthermore, unlike the other FTAs U.S. have concluded, as the labor disputes arising under the FTA can be referred to the ordinary Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the labor standards in the FTA can have a legally binding force. This paper proposes the implementation and interpretation of labor clauses in both FTAs should be understood in these policy changes on labor and trade linkage in EU and U.S. As newly concluded bilateral trade agreements have established their own labor standards which are derived from the current ILO's international standards, it seems that ILO's role and influence in shaping international labor standards tend to be impeded by the bilateral trade agreements.

미국 해고제한법리의 전개

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 1993 노동법연구 Vol.- No.3

프랑스와 독일에서의 노동법 개혁

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 1994 노동법연구 Vol.- No.4

근로기준법상 서면합의의 효력

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 1998 노동법연구 Vol.- No.7

특수형태근로종사자의 법적 규율을 위한 입법적 모색

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2005 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.19

불법체류 외국인 근로자의 노동조합 설립과 활동

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2014 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.37

종래 불법체류 외국인 근로자의 집단적 노동관계법상의 지위에 대해서는 이들이 노동조합을 설립할 수 있는지 여부에만 초점을 두어 논의가 전개되었으나, 이 논문은 불법체류 외국인 근로자의 노조 설립이 가능한지 여부는 그 자체만으로 해결될 수는 없고, 불법체류 외국인 근로자의 법적 지위에 관한 기존의 판례, 노조 설립을 허용할 경우에 발생할 수 있는 법적 쟁점 나아가 출입국관리법 등 전체 법질서와의 관계 등을 종합적으로 고려하면서 접근할 때에만 가능하다고 주장하고 있다. 이와 같은 관점 하에서 이 논문은 불법체류 외국인 근로자의 노조 설립을 인정할 때 발생할 수 있는 다양한 법적 쟁점을 미국에서의 논의를 참조하여 분석하고, 우리나라에 대한 시사점과 해결방안을 제시하고 있다.

조직형태변경과 산별노조의 하부조직

이승욱(李承昱) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2017 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.42

대법원 2016. 2. 19. 선고 2012다96120 전원합의체 판결은 산별노조 등 초기업별노조 내의 지회, 분회 등 하부조직이 조직형태변경의 독자적인 주체가 될 수 있는지 여부에 대해 향후 우리나라 산별노조체제에 큰 영향을 미치는 판단을 내렸다. 이 판결은 노조법상 조직형태변경제도의 연혁, 입법취지, 조문의 위치, 규정내용, 그 법적 효과, 복수노조 허용 등 관련 제도의 변화에 비추어 볼 때 조직형태변경의 주체를 ‘노동조합'에 한정하는 것이 원칙이고 타당함에도 불구하고, 이를 확대해석하여 불필요한 규범적 · 현실적 혼란의 가능성을 야기하고 있으며, 조직형태변경의 효과가 발생하기 위한 요건이라고 할 수 있는 조직형태변경 전후의 ‘실질적 동일성'에 대해 의도적으로 침묵함으로써 “독자적인 단체교섭 및 단체협약체결능력”이 없는 근로자단체가 조직형태변경을 통해 ‘단체협약'을 승계하게 되는 쉽게 이해하기 어려운 부당한 결과를 초래하는 점에서 문제가 있다. 나아가 판결의 결론을 수용한다고 하더라도, 이 판결은 “법인 아닌 사단의 실질을 가지고 있어 기업별 노동조합과 유사한 근로자단체”로서 인정되기 위한 요건 내지 징표에 대해 구체적으로 제시하지 않은 점에서 한계가 있다. 본고에서는 전합판결의 판지는 어디까지나 원칙에 대한 예외이고 가능한 엄격하게 해석하여야 한다는 관점 하에 그 내용을 구체적으로 제시하고 있다. Although the industrial trade unionism in Korea has been institutionally settled to some extent, the traditional enterprise level unionism still practically remains. Under these circumstances, the conclusion of the full bench decision of the Supreme Court of Korea, sentenced on 19. Feb. 2016, which broadly recognize the subject of the resolution of organizational change by the subordinate organization of industrial union, has important significance that can have a great influence on the industrial relations as well as on the organization and operation of industrial unions in Korea. This decision goes beyond the boundaries of the previous common view which has considered only ‘subordinate organization similar to enterprise union' can be the subject of the resolution of structural change in subordinate organization of industrial union. The decision also accepts subordinate organizations, including chapters of industrial union, which amount to unincorporated association as the subject of structural change resolution, even if the organizations do not have independent capability for collective bargaining and concluding collective agreement This ruling leads to an unfair result as it substantially grants equal position to the right to organize for industrial unions and the freedom of association of ‘unincorporated organizations analogous to enterprise trade unions', giving priority to civil law regarding structural change over the distinct characteristics of labor law. It is hard to agree on such conclusion since it is reasonable to limit the subject of structural change resolution to ‘labor union' or at least to organizations similar to enterprise trade union, considering the history and the purpose of legislation, the wordings and the position of the provision, the legal effect, and the change in related system such as permission of plural trade unionism. The decision can be criticized that it also does not mention about ‘substantial identity' before and after structural changes which is required for the structural changes to take effect, and lets the organizations without independent capability for collective bargaining and concluding collective agreement to succeed ‘collective agreement' through structural changes, which is hard to understand. Furthermore, even if such conclusion is to be accepted, the decision has flaws since it does not point out specific indications or requirements for an organization to be recognized as “unincorporated association analogous to enterprise trade union.” This paper tries to suggest these specific requirements on the basis that the Supreme Court's decision must be narrowly interpreted since it is an exception to the principle that a trade union cannot exist within another trade union.