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
I tried to analyze schemes of the parties, employee and employer or its association each other, to a collective bargaining in this article. I especially focused on the side of employees' association.
The Section 33 of the Korea Constitution secures that the employees have right to organize, to a collective bargaining, and to concerted activities for promoting their labor conditions. At the same time, the Constitution provides also a clause of a freedom of association in the Section 21. The Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA) requires that a trade union and an employer or employees' association shall bargain, in good faith and sincerity, with each other and make a collective agreement. The Section 29 of the TULRAA provides that the representative of a union has right to bargain and to make collective agreements for the union and its members.
An union and an employer or its association are respectively able to entrust their authority to bargain or to make a collective agreement to a third party. The Section 81 of the TULRAA prohibits, furthermore, some kinds of conduct by an employer as unfair labor practices and punishes those practices with a criminal penality. But it must be noted that there is no provision of a employee's unfair labor practice in the TULRAA. All of these provisions are very similar to provisions of the Constitution and the Labor Union Act in Japan.
Under these statutory circumstances, I chose a case of Tokyo District Labor Relations Commission v. Asahi Diamond Co. (1985) in Japan. Many important problems of Labor Law were involved in the case, i.e. a collective bargaining or the parties to the bargaining under plural unions within a company, a collective agreement clause that a employer should only bargain with one union, a clause that prohibits entrusting authority concerning his collective bargaining or concluding a collective agreement to a third party, and an employer's unfair labor practice etc.
An employer, in this case, refused to bargain with a group of representatives selected from two unions within a company. The employer refused to bargain on the grounds that the group did not satisfy general requirements to be a party to bargain. That is to say, the group did not have an united opinion and the authority to control members of two unions however.
The Supreme Court of Japan, finally, upheld Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo Court of Appeals finding that an employer's refusal to bargain did not violate the Section 7 of employer's unfair labor practices of the Trade Union Act(TUA) in Japan. According to my opinion, the union should have the initiative to petition a collective bargaining with employer or its association under statutory circumstances in Korea and in Japan. In determining whether an employer violates the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan or the Section 81 of the TULRAA in Korea, it is needed to take into account of an unfair labor practice system that prohibits only some kinds of conduct by employer(especially with a criminal penality in Korea). Employees have full rights, though these rights will be conducted through their union, to choose any kinds of representative by their own choosing for a collective bargaining, and to petition the bargaining with their employer, but the employer or its association has no leverage to refuse the petition by the union. It should be respected so much, in analyzing this case, that the right to a collective bargaining does not include entering into a collective agreement also. It will be within a full freedom of employer to conclude the agreement or not.
With respect to this idea, I tried to analyze the Court's opinions in Asahi Diamond. I concluded that the employer violated the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan because of his refusal to a collective bargaining.
In addition, there are generally some questions of violation with the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan or the Section 81 of the TULRAA when the employer offers any particular conditions before or on the table of the collective bargaining with union or his representative. For example, the employer's practices, that he adheres to bargain with only company union or he tries to include a clause of increasing productivity of labor in the collective agreement, are problematic in this sense.
The Section 33 of the Korea Constitution secures that the employees have right to organize, to a collective bargaining, and to concerted activities for promoting their labor conditions. At the same time, the Constitution provides also a clause of a freedom of association in the Section 21. The Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA) requires that a trade union and an employer or employees' association shall bargain, in good faith and sincerity, with each other and make a collective agreement. The Section 29 of the TULRAA provides that the representative of a union has right to bargain and to make collective agreements for the union and its members.
An union and an employer or its association are respectively able to entrust their authority to bargain or to make a collective agreement to a third party. The Section 81 of the TULRAA prohibits, furthermore, some kinds of conduct by an employer as unfair labor practices and punishes those practices with a criminal penality. But it must be noted that there is no provision of a employee's unfair labor practice in the TULRAA. All of these provisions are very similar to provisions of the Constitution and the Labor Union Act in Japan.
Under these statutory circumstances, I chose a case of Tokyo District Labor Relations Commission v. Asahi Diamond Co. (1985) in Japan. Many important problems of Labor Law were involved in the case, i.e. a collective bargaining or the parties to the bargaining under plural unions within a company, a collective agreement clause that a employer should only bargain with one union, a clause that prohibits entrusting authority concerning his collective bargaining or concluding a collective agreement to a third party, and an employer's unfair labor practice etc.
An employer, in this case, refused to bargain with a group of representatives selected from two unions within a company. The employer refused to bargain on the grounds that the group did not satisfy general requirements to be a party to bargain. That is to say, the group did not have an united opinion and the authority to control members of two unions however.
The Supreme Court of Japan, finally, upheld Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo Court of Appeals finding that an employer's refusal to bargain did not violate the Section 7 of employer's unfair labor practices of the Trade Union Act(TUA) in Japan. According to my opinion, the union should have the initiative to petition a collective bargaining with employer or its association under statutory circumstances in Korea and in Japan. In determining whether an employer violates the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan or the Section 81 of the TULRAA in Korea, it is needed to take into account of an unfair labor practice system that prohibits only some kinds of conduct by employer(especially with a criminal penality in Korea). Employees have full rights, though these rights will be conducted through their union, to choose any kinds of representative by their own choosing for a collective bargaining, and to petition the bargaining with their employer, but the employer or its association has no leverage to refuse the petition by the union. It should be respected so much, in analyzing this case, that the right to a collective bargaining does not include entering into a collective agreement also. It will be within a full freedom of employer to conclude the agreement or not.
With respect to this idea, I tried to analyze the Court's opinions in Asahi Diamond. I concluded that the employer violated the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan because of his refusal to a collective bargaining.
In addition, there are generally some questions of violation with the Section 7 of the TUA in Japan or the Section 81 of the TULRAA when the employer offers any particular conditions before or on the table of the collective bargaining with union or his representative. For example, the employer's practices, that he adheres to bargain with only company union or he tries to include a clause of increasing productivity of labor in the collective agreement, are problematic in this sense.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 아사히(旭)다이야몬드사건
Ⅲ. 아사히다이야몬드사건과 노동법적 과제
Ⅳ. 결론에 갈음하여
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
복수노동조합보장과 집단적 노동관계 형성방향
노동법학
2009 .09
-
교원노조의 단체교섭 구조 개선에 관한 연구 (사용자측 교섭당사자를 중심으로)
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
台湾之劳资关系与劳动法制
노동법학
2008 .12
-
복수노동조합 하의 교섭창구단일화 관련 법적쟁점
노동법논총
2007 .12
-
미국 연방노동관계법(NLRA)하에서 단체협약 법적성격론과 연방대법원 판례의 해석
노동법학
2008 .06
-
복수노동조합과 단결강제
노동법논총
2011 .12
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
일본의 복수노조에 있어서 부당노동행위
동북아법연구
2013 .01
-
교섭창구 단일화 체계 하에서 소수노조가 갖는 단체교섭권의 범위
노동법포럼
2016 .07
-
일본 복수노조와의 자율교섭과 노사관계 : 사용자의 성실교섭의무 및 중립유지의무를 중심으로
노동법학
2009 .12
-
노동법상 사용자 적격성에 대한 검토 - 학교부문을 중심으로 -
원광법학
2012 .01
-
노동기본권과 소수 노동조합의 협약능력 및 단체협약의 효력에 관한 연구 : 단체교섭창구 단일화를 중심으로
노동법학
2011 .06
-
한국과 미국의 단체교섭법제 비교 : 교섭단위와 교섭대표제를 중심으로
노동법학
2011 .12
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
노조의 존립ㆍ자주성의 보호와 그 모순
노동법학
2006 .06
-
복수노조 시대의 노동법상 부당노동행위제도의 현황과 과제
노동법논총
2014 .12
-
단체교섭 당사자 확정의 법리 - 자율성과 효율성, 특히 단위노동조합 하부조직인 지부·분회와 연합단체의 단체교섭 당사자 적격성을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2003 .12
-
권리분쟁 사항과 단체교섭 사항에 대한 재검토
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
단체교섭권의 보호범위와 단체교섭응낙가처분의 인정근거에 대한 재검토
노동법포럼
2012 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-336-002865145