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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제27호
- 발행연도
- 2019.7
- 수록면
- 1 - 37 (37page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2019.07.27.1
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The bargaining unit is the basis of the single bargaining unit rule which requires multiple trade unions to unify the contact point and henceforth is the unit that determines the bargaining representative trade union. The reason why our Trade Union Act legally stipulates bargaining units by industry or business place with the implementation of the single bargaining unit rule was to restrict the subdivision of bargaining units and to prevent the risk of hindrance of actual equality between the employer and workers. In other words the legislators, upon considering the previous bargaining customs in which labor conditions were determined based on the company, deemed that the smallest unit that could maintain equality between employer and worker was industry and business place and they legally stipulated the same as the appropriate bargaining unit.
Settle the unit of industry and business place as the minimum bargaining unit is mandatory in that it secures actual equality between the employer and worker. As such having a bargaining unit that is smaller than the minimum bargaining unit upon the agreement between the employer and worker is prohibited as it violates this mandatory provision and can only be possible upon the determination of separation rendered by the Labor Committee. That being said above-company level bargaining units may be deemed as a bargaining unit that is above the minimum bargaining unit stipulated under the Trade Union Act and could be deemed as a field that has secured actual equality. Therefore, we must interpret this to mean that determining a bargaining unit that is above the industry and business place unit may be agreed upon by the employers and workers. Where equality between the employers and workers has been secured the free-will of the employers and works must take priority. As such implementation of the single bargaining unit rule on the determination of above-company level bargaining units and thus deemed to have secured actual equality on the grounds of securing bargaining equality is inappropriate. This is why the minimum bargaining unit is mandatory under Article 29-3 Para 1 of the Trade Union Act. This theory of interpretation is meaningful in that it solves the limits of the prior theory of interpretation of Article 29-3 Para 1 of the Trade Act as a mandatory provision, the problem of uniformly determining bargaining units that should be freely determined by and between the employers and workers, the problems that arise in which industrywide bargaining and above-company level bargaining units is limited as a result of limiting the industry and business place bargaining unit.
Settle the unit of industry and business place as the minimum bargaining unit is mandatory in that it secures actual equality between the employer and worker. As such having a bargaining unit that is smaller than the minimum bargaining unit upon the agreement between the employer and worker is prohibited as it violates this mandatory provision and can only be possible upon the determination of separation rendered by the Labor Committee. That being said above-company level bargaining units may be deemed as a bargaining unit that is above the minimum bargaining unit stipulated under the Trade Union Act and could be deemed as a field that has secured actual equality. Therefore, we must interpret this to mean that determining a bargaining unit that is above the industry and business place unit may be agreed upon by the employers and workers. Where equality between the employers and workers has been secured the free-will of the employers and works must take priority. As such implementation of the single bargaining unit rule on the determination of above-company level bargaining units and thus deemed to have secured actual equality on the grounds of securing bargaining equality is inappropriate. This is why the minimum bargaining unit is mandatory under Article 29-3 Para 1 of the Trade Union Act. This theory of interpretation is meaningful in that it solves the limits of the prior theory of interpretation of Article 29-3 Para 1 of the Trade Act as a mandatory provision, the problem of uniformly determining bargaining units that should be freely determined by and between the employers and workers, the problems that arise in which industrywide bargaining and above-company level bargaining units is limited as a result of limiting the industry and business place bargaining unit.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 교섭단위와 교섭구조
Ⅲ. 교섭단위의 법정화와 교섭단위 결정 법리
Ⅳ. 교섭단위의 확대
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
간접고용과 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 사업 또는 사업장 교섭단위의 적용을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2020 .03
-
교섭단위 분리 제도의 법적 쟁점
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
복수노조에서 개별교섭 요건의 재검토
노동법학
2021 .06
-
용역업에 있어서의 교섭단위분리에 관한 실무상 쟁점
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
회사분할과 교섭단위 분리의 필요성 – 서울행정법원 2021. 11. 12. 선고 2021구합58394 판결을 중심으로 –
노동법논총
2021 .12
-
협약자치와 교섭창구단일화제도
노동법학
2022 .03
-
교섭창구 단일화 체계 하에서 소수노조가 갖는 단체교섭권의 범위
노동법포럼
2016 .07
-
교섭단위 분리에 관한 법적 쟁점 — 노동위원회와 법원의 판단을 중심으로 —
사회법연구
2021 .08
-
공무원 단체교섭의 법적 쟁점과 과제 : 최근 재개된 2008 정부공동교섭의 사례를 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .09
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
사무직 노조 교섭단위분리 사건에 대한 법적 검토
법학논집
2021 .09
-
단수노조 사업장에서 교섭창구단일화 절차의 이행 및 단수노조에 대한 교섭대표노조로서의 지위 인정 여부
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화 제도에 관한 연구
한양법학
2015 .08
-
교섭창구단일화제도 시행 3년의 평가와 제도 개선 방향
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
‘2018 행정부교섭’의 법적·실무상 쟁점 - 교섭창구 단일화, 지부교섭 위임, 절차합의서 등을 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .09
-
단수노조와 교섭창구단일화절차
노동법학
2015 .09
-
원·하청 노동관계의 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 하청노동조합의 원청사업주 교섭단위 참여를 중심으로 -
노동법학
2024 .06
-
초기업별 교섭 촉진을 위한 단체교섭 법제도 개선 방안
노동연구
2022 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0