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
There are conflicting views about whether or not the bargaining agent determination process should be implemented even when a workplace has a single union situation. In order to decide on this issue, it is necessary to have a comprehensive consideration about the relationship between the bargaining agent determination system and the constitutional right to collective bargaining, the purpose and substance of bargaining agent determination process, the existing legal doctrines of the court about collective bargaining, and the overall structure and substance of “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”(hereinafter referred as “TULRAA”).
As long as the trade union pluralism at the enterprise level stays allowed, it is appropriate to presuppose that plural union situation is the principle and single union situation is an exception at least in a normative view. Regardless of the reality, it should be premised that plural trade union situation could always normatively exist.
The bargaining agent determination system in a broad sense under the existing law consists of two stages. First stage is to confirm the number of unions joined or established by workers within a single business or a workplace. If more than two unions are found to be organized at this stage, then the second stage of deciding which union will become the representative in a bargaining, the bargaining agent determination process, will be enforced. Confirming if there is only one union joined or established by workers within a business or a workplace is not exactly the bargaining agent determination process itself, but it is a prior stage that is integrally related to the determination process.
Under the existing law, the process specified from Article 14.2 to Article 14.5 under Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA is the one and only way to figure out if related party is engaged in a single union situation or a plural union station. And this process does not put unreasonably excessive pressure on unions or employers. Nevertheless, if an employer and a random union proceeds with bargaining without going through the bargaining agent determination process, the bargaining representative right or expectations right of other unions would be infringed.
The bargaining agent union’s representative right under the bargaining agent determination system, does not only provide the union with indirect, factual and economic interests. It allows the agent union to represent not only itself and its’ members but also other unions and their members, to go through collective bargaining or to sign collective agreements, all of which could be considered as legal benefits that are directly and specifically protected. Furthermore, the bargaining agent determination process that consists of the two stages should be interpreted as a mandatory provision.
Since the existence of plural union could only be confirmed by Article 14.2 to Article 14.5 under Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA, a single union would infringe other unions’ bargaining representative right and expectations right if it does not follow the determination process. The single union also cannot become a lawful agent for collective bargaining or strike action unless it goes through the determination process.
As long as the trade union pluralism at the enterprise level stays allowed, it is appropriate to presuppose that plural union situation is the principle and single union situation is an exception at least in a normative view. Regardless of the reality, it should be premised that plural trade union situation could always normatively exist.
The bargaining agent determination system in a broad sense under the existing law consists of two stages. First stage is to confirm the number of unions joined or established by workers within a single business or a workplace. If more than two unions are found to be organized at this stage, then the second stage of deciding which union will become the representative in a bargaining, the bargaining agent determination process, will be enforced. Confirming if there is only one union joined or established by workers within a business or a workplace is not exactly the bargaining agent determination process itself, but it is a prior stage that is integrally related to the determination process.
Under the existing law, the process specified from Article 14.2 to Article 14.5 under Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA is the one and only way to figure out if related party is engaged in a single union situation or a plural union station. And this process does not put unreasonably excessive pressure on unions or employers. Nevertheless, if an employer and a random union proceeds with bargaining without going through the bargaining agent determination process, the bargaining representative right or expectations right of other unions would be infringed.
The bargaining agent union’s representative right under the bargaining agent determination system, does not only provide the union with indirect, factual and economic interests. It allows the agent union to represent not only itself and its’ members but also other unions and their members, to go through collective bargaining or to sign collective agreements, all of which could be considered as legal benefits that are directly and specifically protected. Furthermore, the bargaining agent determination process that consists of the two stages should be interpreted as a mandatory provision.
Since the existence of plural union could only be confirmed by Article 14.2 to Article 14.5 under Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA, a single union would infringe other unions’ bargaining representative right and expectations right if it does not follow the determination process. The single union also cannot become a lawful agent for collective bargaining or strike action unless it goes through the determination process.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 교섭창구단일화제도의 취지
Ⅲ. 교섭창구단일화제도의 법적 성격과 체계
Ⅳ. 노동조합이 하나만 존재하는 경우 교섭창구단일화절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (13)
참고문헌 신청
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 강선희 / 2011 / 노동기본권과 소수 노동조합의 협약능력 및 단체협약의 효력에 관한 연구 ― 단체교섭창구 단일화를 중심으로 ― / 노동법학 (38) : 77 ~ 116
[기타자료] - / 2010 / 사업(사업장) 단위 복수노조 업무매뉴얼 / 고용노동부
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 권혁 / 2012 / 교섭창구단일화제도와 산별교섭 / 노동법학 (43) : 1 ~ 29
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김영문 / 2011 / 복수노조와 협약자율 ― 교섭창구단일화와 소수노조와 관련하여 ― / 노동법학 (38) : 1 ~ 76
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 박종희 / 2011 / 교섭창구 단일화 방안의 안정적 정착을 위한 해석방안 / 안암법학 (34) : 523 ~ 553
[기타자료] - / 2010 / 사업(사업장) 단위 복수노조 업무매뉴얼 / 고용노동부
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 권혁 / 2012 / 교섭창구단일화제도와 산별교섭 / 노동법학 (43) : 1 ~ 29
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김영문 / 2011 / 복수노조와 협약자율 ― 교섭창구단일화와 소수노조와 관련하여 ― / 노동법학 (38) : 1 ~ 76
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 박종희 / 2011 / 교섭창구 단일화 방안의 안정적 정착을 위한 해석방안 / 안암법학 (34) : 523 ~ 553
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
협약자치와 교섭창구단일화제도
노동법학
2022 .03
-
교섭창구 단일화 체계 하에서 소수노조가 갖는 단체교섭권의 범위
노동법포럼
2016 .07
-
유일 노동조합하에서의 교섭창구단일화 절차 이행 여부와 쟁의행위의 정당성 : 서울고법 2014.11.27.선고 2014누44191, 44207(병합) 판결
한양법학
2016 .02
-
교섭창구 단일화 제도에 대한 헌법재판소 결정문 읽기 ― 헌재 2012. 4. 24. 2011헌마338 ―
노동법학
2023 .03
-
교섭창구단일화제도 시행 3년의 평가와 제도 개선 방향
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
복수노조에서 개별교섭 요건의 재검토
노동법학
2021 .06
-
복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화 제도에 관한 연구
한양법학
2015 .08
-
단수노조 사업장에서 교섭창구단일화 절차의 이행 및 단수노조에 대한 교섭대표노조로서의 지위 인정 여부
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
‘2018 행정부교섭’의 법적·실무상 쟁점 - 교섭창구 단일화, 지부교섭 위임, 절차합의서 등을 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .09
-
간접고용과 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 사업 또는 사업장 교섭단위의 적용을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2020 .03
-
노사관계측면에서 바라본 교섭창구단일화제도의 현황과 시사점
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
프랑스의 복수노조와 기업단위에서의 단체교섭법제
영남법학
2022 .12
-
공무원 단체교섭의 법적 쟁점과 과제 : 최근 재개된 2008 정부공동교섭의 사례를 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .09
-
교섭단위의 결정법리와 교섭단위의 확대
노동법포럼
2019 .07
-
교섭대표노조의 법적 지위 관점에서 본 공정대표의무의 의의와 내용
노동법포럼
2016 .02
-
교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
단체교섭권 보장에 관한 일본 법제도의 성립 및 현황에 관한 일고찰
동아법학
2022 .02
-
교섭대표노동조합의 지위 유지기간의 관한 고찰
법학연구
2021 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-336-001982350