직장폐쇄의 정당성과 효과 = Legitimacy and Effect of Lock-out

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In General, a lock-out is a means that an employer can perform against the industrial dispute legally. The employer can temporarily refuse to accept the labour of workers in collective manner, in order to recover the balance of power between the employer and the workers brought about by the industrial action of workers.
Since the early 1990s, employers have used the lock-out consistently with a means of against the industrial dispute. However it's concept, effect and recognition have been controversial because the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA) doesn't provide the legal concept and effect of lock-out. Article 46 in TULRAA only provides that possibility of the lock-out after starting workers' the industrial action.
The purpose of this thesis is to review the standard of judgment about legitimacy of the lock-out and it's legal effect.
The constitution of Korea guarantees only employees' right to strike. Therefore employer's right to the lock-out is based on the Article 46 of TULRAA. It can be said a right of lock-out is originated from principle of material equality and principle of balance of power between the employer and the employees, the Article 46 needs to be understood as the ground for considering the lock-out as the defensive right. The employers cannot lock out freely whenever they want. First of all, it is limited by principle of equality, and then by TULRAA. The lock-out should meet the criteria of counterterror(that is to say, it shoud be done as passive way only after the industrial action of workers takes place.) and defensiveness. Furthermore, it should satisfy the criteria of necessity, brought about by unavoidable circumstance that prompt the employer to resort to a lock out. If the purpose of the lock-out is to prevent employees from joining or designating a labor organization or to obstruct their free choice of representative, this is cleary "discouragement of union membership" through the intentional deprivation of job opportunities. therfore it is the violation of the Article 81 of TULRAA.
As the effect of lock-out employer is exempted from the obligation to pay wages. The problem is whether or not to admit the removal of workers from the work place with the effect of lockout. Particularly, The legal problem is related to sit-down strike. Sit-down strike to occupy part of there is justified in Korea. Case law of Court say if a lock out of the building is carried out, strikers should leave the place of business since the right for control over the properties is fully recovered. However it isn't considered right. The legitimate sit-down strike is already balanced between the employer and the workers, hence the removal effect or no-entrance effect does not occur directly from lockout and in case strikers do sit-down legally, in spite of lockout, the sit-down does not convert into illegal action.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• I. 연구의 목적 1
• II. 연구의 범위 및 방법 3
• 제2장 직장폐쇄의 의의와 성립 5
• I. 직장폐쇄의 개념 5
• 1. 직장폐쇄 5
• 2. 직장폐쇄와 타개념과의 구별 8
• II. 직장폐쇄의 인정근거 11
• 1. 외국의 사례 11
• 2. 우리나라의 학설과 판례 21
• III. 직장폐쇄의 성립 25
• 1. 성립 요건 25
• 2. 절차·방식을 위반한 직장폐쇄의 성립여부 28
• IV. 소 결 31
• 제3장 직장폐쇄의 정당성 판단기준 33
• I. 대항성(직장폐쇄의 시기) 33
• 1. 선제적 직장폐쇄 34
• 2. 파업 종료 후의 직장폐쇄 35
• 3. 판례의 경향 37
• II. 방어성(직장폐쇄의 목적) 42
• 1. 방어적 직장폐쇄 42
• 2. 방어성 판단의 구체적 기준 42
• 3. 판례의 경향 45
• III. 불법파업에 대항한 직장폐쇄 49
• 1. 독일에서의 논의 49
• 2. 우리나라에서의 논의 52
• 3. 검 토 55
• IV. 직장폐쇄의 대상(범위) 57
• 1. 물적범위 57
• 2. 인적범위 59
• V. 소 결 71
• 제4장 직장폐쇄의 효과 74
• I. 근로계약관계 존속 74
• II. 조업의 계속 75
• 1. 사용자의 조업의 자유 75
• 2. 직장폐쇄 시 대체근로 가능 범위 76
• 3. 비조합원의 대체근로 거부권 77
• 4. 조업의 자유와 부당노동행위 78
• 5. 소 결 80
• III. 임금지급의무 면제 81
• 1. 조합원에 대한 임금지급의무 면제 81
• 2. 비조합원에 대한 임금지급의무 면제 82
• 3. 소 결 83
• IV. 퇴거요구 및 방해배제효력의 문제 83
• 1. 문제제기 83
• 2. 직장점거의 개념 84
• 3. 직장점거의 인정근거 85
• 4. 정당한 직장점거의 범위 87
• 5. 직장폐쇄 후의 직장점거 문제 93
• 6. 소 결 103
• V. 정당성을 상실한 직장폐쇄 105
• 1. 임금지급의무 105
• 2. 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제46조 위반의 책임 107
• 3. 부당노동행위 107
• 4. 위법한 직장폐쇄에 대한 근로자의 대응 108
• 제5장 결 론 109
• 참고문헌 115
• 영문초록 118