유일 노동조합하에서의 교섭창구단일화 절차 이행 여부와 쟁의행위의 정당성 = 서울고법 2014.11.27.선고 2014누44191, 44207(병합) 판결

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 사실관계
• Ⅱ. 판결의 요지(이하‘판지’라 한다)4)- 제1심판결 인용
• Ⅲ. 평석
• Ⅳ. 판결의 한계점과 시사점-결론을 대신하여
• 【참고문헌】
• 【Abstract】