지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Compared to the function of case law concerning industrial relations in most of the developed countries, that of the Republic of Korea occupies an overwhelming portion in formulating the practical consciousness of the social partners, as well as the public in general. Social partners sometimes adhere to it in the hope that it would back up their own interest. But if they cannot hope the positive result of it, their attitude turns to the direct opposite. Case law has no persuasive effectiveness to the social partners but the usefulness as a defensive measures.
Case law has accumulated the notion that the right to organize, bargain collectively and strike is closely interrelated in that the right to organize and strike is justified only in the context linked to the right to bargain collectively. So the trinity of the right to organize, bargain collectively and strike can have its own meaning only in the condition that it serves as a tool to obtain the better working conditions. On the other hand, case law has construed that the labor law should be supplemented by the concrete legislation, the content of which is reserved to the wide - for my part, it almost seems to amount to "unlimited"discretion of the competent bodies of legislation. Thus the labor law concerning industrial relations cannot only identify the trade union right but also restrict it.
Although it is undeniable that the legislation might restrict the constitutional rights in a limited condition, the constitutional legitimacy of the over-restriction of the legislation should be denied. But case law has pardoned the over-restriction. To make the matter worse, it is accompanied by the context of biased politics. For example, case law has set the prevention of the industrial conflict prior to the democratic administration of trade union, and the possible liability of the unjust concerted activities prior to the normative needs in the strike-ballot. Case law had set aside the normative need to respect the democratic administration of trade union as one of the essence of industrial relations law, because it may cause an industrial conflicts and harm the peace of the premise.
In recent years, significant confusion arises in sharing the normative sense of the constitutional rights of workers between social partners, as well as the public in general. Futhermore it is not a foolish foreboding that in the near future it will threats the social integration. So the misunderstandings of the notions of case law should be reviewed in the precise context of the norm of the trade union right.
Case law has accumulated the notion that the right to organize, bargain collectively and strike is closely interrelated in that the right to organize and strike is justified only in the context linked to the right to bargain collectively. So the trinity of the right to organize, bargain collectively and strike can have its own meaning only in the condition that it serves as a tool to obtain the better working conditions. On the other hand, case law has construed that the labor law should be supplemented by the concrete legislation, the content of which is reserved to the wide - for my part, it almost seems to amount to "unlimited"discretion of the competent bodies of legislation. Thus the labor law concerning industrial relations cannot only identify the trade union right but also restrict it.
Although it is undeniable that the legislation might restrict the constitutional rights in a limited condition, the constitutional legitimacy of the over-restriction of the legislation should be denied. But case law has pardoned the over-restriction. To make the matter worse, it is accompanied by the context of biased politics. For example, case law has set the prevention of the industrial conflict prior to the democratic administration of trade union, and the possible liability of the unjust concerted activities prior to the normative needs in the strike-ballot. Case law had set aside the normative need to respect the democratic administration of trade union as one of the essence of industrial relations law, because it may cause an industrial conflicts and harm the peace of the premise.
In recent years, significant confusion arises in sharing the normative sense of the constitutional rights of workers between social partners, as well as the public in general. Futhermore it is not a foolish foreboding that in the near future it will threats the social integration. So the misunderstandings of the notions of case law should be reviewed in the precise context of the norm of the trade union right.
목차
1. 규범론과 정책론의 문제상황
2. 판례법리상의 규범론과 정책론
3. 판례법리에 따른 근로삼권의 이해
4. 근로삼권의 규범론과 정책론
5. 규범론의 복권을 기대하며
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
WHAT IS LAW
저스티스
1965 .04
-
노사관계의 시대적 방향성
노동법논총
2006 .12
-
公共部門 勞使關係의 法的 體系 및 勤勞三權
산업관계연구
2001 .06
-
公務員勞組 立法化에 대한 小考
노동법학
2004 .12
-
인도 노동조합법 : 노동조합 설립 및 승인과 관련된 문제점을 중심으로
노동법논총
2009 .12
-
한·중 환경기본법 비교 : 중국의 「환경보호법」을 중심으로
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
노조전임자 급여지급에 관한 노동법적 고찰
노동법학
2008 .06
-
미국의 일방적 통상보복에 대한 국내 통상법규의 개정방향
관세학회지
2003 .08
-
노사자치의 한계와 노동법적 규제의 정당성
노동법학
2004 .12
-
쟁의행위와 민사책임에 관한 영국법리
노동법학
2007 .06
-
Is Right to Strike Sacrosanct and not Subject to Judicial Interpretation?
산업관계연구
2006 .06
-
The Impact of Industrial Action Ballots on Trade Union Procedures, Practices and Behaviour
산업관계연구
2005 .06
-
노동조합 정의규정과 설립심사제도 : 법상 노조 아님 통보를 중심으로
노동법학
2014 .09
-
복수노조설립금지제도의 위헌성
노동법연구
2007 .09
-
교원노조법의 주요쟁점에 대한 검토
한양법학
2010 .02
-
조직형태 변경 절차의 주체로서 노동조합의 개념에 관한 해석론 : ‘독일에서의 단결체 개념을 중심으로’
노동법논총
2015 .04
-
노사관계로드맵 17년의 평가와 전망
노동법학
2011 .09
-
사립대학 교직원의 노동법 및 사회보장법상의 지위
노동법논총
2013 .12
-
미국의 노동권법과 헌법상 결사의 자유
노동법논총
2015 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
공무원노동조합 연합단체의 단체교섭권 : 대상판결 : 서울고법 2010.2.10. 선고 2009누9828 판결 【부당노동행위구제재심판정취소】 판결전문 일련번호 : 10_2007
정인섭
노동법학
2010
.06
노동삼권과 법률
정인섭
노동법연구
2014
.03
외국인근로자의 임금을 둘러싼 법적 문제점과 개선방안
노재철
,
고준기
한국콘텐츠학회논문지
2014
.04
비공식 고용과 노동법
강성태
노동법연구
2014
.03
위법한 단체협약에 대한 행정기관의 시정명령 : 대전지방법원 2012. 1. 18. 선고 2011구합183 판결
강선희
노동법학
2012
.09
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-336-013722138