개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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
The new Labor Law, the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA) in the end of 2006, removed compulsory arbitration scheme and stipulated the essential services maintenance requirement for the purpose of public interest. At Now, the question how to set up specific and realistic criteria for the scope of minimum services so called 'essential services maintenance' which, refers to the services indispensible to the protection of public interest is raised.
To solve this problem, there should be efforts to harmonize the right to strike and protection of public interest. After all, when it comes to restriction on the right to strike, neither excessive restriction nor negligence of the protection of public interest is acceptable. If all or most services at an operation are required to be maintained, the workers' right to strike at the operation will be lost. This result is the same as compulsory arbitration actually. But compulsory arbitration is imposed in essential public service businesses before a strike is call. This places an excessive restriction on the workers' right to collective action, and in practice, deprives workers of their right to strike. As a consequence, the compulsory arbitration scheme is inconsistent with the Constitution.
In determining the scope of minimum services at an operation are required to be maintained, workers' organizations should participate along with employers. And the determination of the number of workers providing them should also involve workers' organizations. It will be appropriate that the agreements on essential services maintenance are contracted at collective bargaining between Labor and Management. As the TULRAA could be interpreted that the scope of minimum services may be determined by voluntary agreement, it will further enhance the possibility of Labor-Management collective agreement on this issue. The government should also play an important role here as a public supervisor and a helper in determining the scope of minimum services in essential public service businesses and at a company. These analysis might enhance the voluntary agreement and hold labor and management in essential public service accountable for public interest. In solving the problem of substitute work also, it is the same. The minimum interference is the best.
To solve this problem, there should be efforts to harmonize the right to strike and protection of public interest. After all, when it comes to restriction on the right to strike, neither excessive restriction nor negligence of the protection of public interest is acceptable. If all or most services at an operation are required to be maintained, the workers' right to strike at the operation will be lost. This result is the same as compulsory arbitration actually. But compulsory arbitration is imposed in essential public service businesses before a strike is call. This places an excessive restriction on the workers' right to collective action, and in practice, deprives workers of their right to strike. As a consequence, the compulsory arbitration scheme is inconsistent with the Constitution.
In determining the scope of minimum services at an operation are required to be maintained, workers' organizations should participate along with employers. And the determination of the number of workers providing them should also involve workers' organizations. It will be appropriate that the agreements on essential services maintenance are contracted at collective bargaining between Labor and Management. As the TULRAA could be interpreted that the scope of minimum services may be determined by voluntary agreement, it will further enhance the possibility of Labor-Management collective agreement on this issue. The government should also play an important role here as a public supervisor and a helper in determining the scope of minimum services in essential public service businesses and at a company. These analysis might enhance the voluntary agreement and hold labor and management in essential public service accountable for public interest. In solving the problem of substitute work also, it is the same. The minimum interference is the best.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 필수유지업무의 범위
Ⅲ. 필수유지업무 관련조항의 법리적 해석
Ⅳ. 결론 및 시사점
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
필수유지업무제도의 쟁점에 대한 제언
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
필수유지업무제도에서 파업권 제한의 문제 : 판례 분석을 중심으로
노동법학
2016 .12
-
필수유지업무제도의 내용과 한계 : 필수유지업무결정 절차에 대한 개선방안
노동법학
2013 .03
-
파업권 보장을 위한 필수유지업무제도 개선방안 - 노동위원회 매뉴얼 개정을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2020 .03
-
직권중재제도의 대체적 개선 방안
노동법연구
2003 .12
-
필수유지업무제도에 대한 비판적 고찰
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
爭議行爲制限으로서 必須維持業務에 관한 論議
법과정책
2013 .01
-
병원사업에 있어서 "필수유지업무"에 관한 법리적 검토
의료법학
2009 .01
-
필수공익사업장에서 정당한 쟁의행위란 가능한가? : 2009년 철도노조 파업의 법적 쟁점들
동아법학
2014 .02
-
필수유지업무결정 제도의 해석론적 쟁점에 대한 시론
노동법연구
2009 .09
-
전력산업분야 필수유지업무제도 연구
노동연구
2010 .04
-
최소업무의 유지의무 : 쟁의행위권 행사의 한계로서 인정하는 법이론적 검토
법학연구
2004 .12
-
한국노동쟁의에 있어서 직권중재제도의 개선에 관한 연구
중재연구
2006 .01
-
필수유지업무제도 운영상의 쟁점 및 과제 : 병원사업을 중심으로
노동연구
2011 .04
-
필수공익사업 직권중재에 관한 입법론적 고찰
노동법학
2001 .12
-
노사강제중재제도(勞使强制仲裁制度)의 효율성(效率性) 분석(分析) - 강제중재(强制仲裁)의 파업행위기능(罷業行爲機能) 대행(代行) -
경영학연구
1987 .01
-
공무원 노사관계의 현황과 발전방향
원광법학
2009 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-336-014707599