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 제21호
- 발행연도
- 2017.7
- 수록면
- 73 - 102 (30page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2017.07.21.73
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In Japan, the Supreme Court has concentrated on the theory of interpretation of the Constitution in the case of the post - strike liability of civil servants who are prohibited from engaging in industrial action, and has accumulated legal logic on the limitation of basic labor rights in a way that changes its own logic. As such, in Japan, fundamental rights to labor of the public employee was the subject of important issues that span not only the constitution but also Labor Union Law and administrative law.
In the reform of the public service system, which has been in full swing since the 2000s, fundamental rights to labor of the public employee have received attention in Japan. In particular, November 20, 2002, the ILO Board of Governors expressed the freedom of association, stating that it violates ILO Fundamental Conventions No. 87 and No. 98, which has already been ratified by Labor Relations Adjustment Law of Japanese civil servants, and recommended that the system is improved in accordance with the Convention. Adopted the Commission’s report. Therefore, the focus of discussion on the fundamental rights of public servants in Japan is the re-establishment of Civil Servant Law in compliance with Article 28 of the Japanese Constitution and ILO Conventions 87 and 98 on the premise of the Supreme Court’s case law.
In Korea, the founding constitution in 1948, in principle, did not restrict the fundamental rights to labor of the public employee, but they could not discuss the basic labor rights of the public officials due to division and war. In 1962, as a military regime came into being, basic labor rights were totally denied to a general public employee in accordance with Article 33 (2) of the Constitution and Article 66 of the National Public Service Act.
The two countries are: ① guaranteeing fundamental rights to labor by seeing the public employee as workers in the Constitution; ② the legal system of labor relations is very similar; and ③ there is little difference in the constitutionality of restricting the fundamental rights to labor(right to strike). Since the democratization of Korea, January 28, 2006, the act of public officials’ trade unions was enacted to lay the foundations for the formation of labor-management relations among civil servants. However, there are many challenges related to the ratification of the ILO Fundamental Conventions. It is when we need to make efforts to reduce our trial and error by taking advantage of Japan ‘s experience.
In the reform of the public service system, which has been in full swing since the 2000s, fundamental rights to labor of the public employee have received attention in Japan. In particular, November 20, 2002, the ILO Board of Governors expressed the freedom of association, stating that it violates ILO Fundamental Conventions No. 87 and No. 98, which has already been ratified by Labor Relations Adjustment Law of Japanese civil servants, and recommended that the system is improved in accordance with the Convention. Adopted the Commission’s report. Therefore, the focus of discussion on the fundamental rights of public servants in Japan is the re-establishment of Civil Servant Law in compliance with Article 28 of the Japanese Constitution and ILO Conventions 87 and 98 on the premise of the Supreme Court’s case law.
In Korea, the founding constitution in 1948, in principle, did not restrict the fundamental rights to labor of the public employee, but they could not discuss the basic labor rights of the public officials due to division and war. In 1962, as a military regime came into being, basic labor rights were totally denied to a general public employee in accordance with Article 33 (2) of the Constitution and Article 66 of the National Public Service Act.
The two countries are: ① guaranteeing fundamental rights to labor by seeing the public employee as workers in the Constitution; ② the legal system of labor relations is very similar; and ③ there is little difference in the constitutionality of restricting the fundamental rights to labor(right to strike). Since the democratization of Korea, January 28, 2006, the act of public officials’ trade unions was enacted to lay the foundations for the formation of labor-management relations among civil servants. However, there are many challenges related to the ratification of the ILO Fundamental Conventions. It is when we need to make efforts to reduce our trial and error by taking advantage of Japan ‘s experience.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의식
Ⅱ. 일본 노동조합법 제정과 공무원의 노동기본권
Ⅲ. 일본 공무원의 노동기본권 제한 입법과 쟁점
Ⅳ. 일본 공무원 직원단체의 법적 성격
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국 연방정부 공무원의 노동기본권 보장과 구성
노동법학
2017 .06
-
시대변혁기에 있어서 노동법의 역할
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
1980년대 헌법상 노동기본권의 개정과 노동권 실현에 있어서의 함의
연세법학
2023 .02
-
사용종속관계의 새로운 기준 및 평가
노동법논총
2020 .04
-
노동법의 규범구조와 근로권과 노동3권의 관계
원광법학
2019 .01
-
국방관련 공공기관 직원의 노동3권에 관한 법적 쟁점
노동법학
2021 .06
-
노동3권 소고
민주법학
2019 .01
-
새 정부의 노동정책과 법제도의 개선 과제
노동법학
2022 .06
-
헌법상 강제노동금지원칙에 대한 검토
노동법학
2018 .09
-
ILO 기본협약 비준을 위한 2020년 정부 노조법 개정안 분석과 평가
노동법학
2020 .12
-
헌법상 단결권과 노동관계법상 노동조합에 대한 비교 연구
법학연구
2017 .06
-
미군정기 노동법에 관한 연구
노동법학
2025 .03
-
노동참여의 헌법정치학과 노동헌법 판례
국제정치연구
2016 .12
-
노동시장정책과 쟁점 검토
노동법논총
2015 .08
-
공무원노동조합에 관한 비교법적 연구 -노동3권의 인정범위를 중심으로-
법학논총
2019 .10
-
사업장 자치, 노사협의회와 근로자대표
노동법포럼
2021 .11
-
공공기관 노동조합의 노동권 : 단체교섭권과 단체협약을 중심으로
노동법연구
2015 .03
-
일본의 협조적 노사관계의 성립 배경과 시사점
외법논집
2022 .08
-
감정노동과 사용자 책임
노동법학
2015 .06
-
정당한 공무원노동조합 활동의 판단기준과 허용범위 등에 관한 연구
법학연구
2015 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-360-001214611