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
- 발행연도
- 2022.3
- 수록면
- 107 - 155 (49page)
- DOI
- 10.69596/JLL.2022.03.81.107
이용수
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Korean Trade Union Act has introduced a system of determining the bargaining representative union as being fully allowed establish multiple unions since July 1, 2011. The system of determining the bargaining representative union has been controversial from the beginning, and it has still much controversy over the details in operation despite the stable settlement after the Constitutional Court"s constitutional decision.
This study starts from the review of the meaning of fundamental rights in three basic rights of labor for examining the constitutionality of a system of determining the bargaining representative union. The three basic rights of labor are one of the fundamental rights specifying the right to pursue happiness to realize of human dignity under the Constitution, which is essential to ensure the right to self-determination in the economic life of workers. It is ensuring collective self-determination through solidary activities among workers based on personal autonomy rather than on the right to live ideology. Therefore, it is necessary to consider two purposes which are ‘ensuring collective autonomy’ and ‘securing substantial equivalence through solidarity’ to understand the system of determining the bargaining representative union.
This study believes that the system of determining the bargaining representative union is constitutional only if the system allows for autonomous individual bargaining, and autonomous determination of bargaining units, and it is also necessary to supplement the basis of justification in the decision of the representative bargaining union, and strictly interpret the duty of fair representation to minimize infringement of collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions.
As the system of determining the bargaining representative union restricts minority unions’ rights for collective bargaining, it should be guaranteed to interpret allowing for autonomous individual bargaining, separating the bargaining units, and the duty of fair representation of the representative trade unions and users constitutionally. That is because these three systems are the pillars that support the constitutionality of the system which determines the bargaining representative union.
The autonomous bargaining structure should take precedence in the procedure of collective bargaining. In the autonomous bargaining structure, labor and management should decide on their own whether all trade unions choose individual bargaining or representative bargaining through single bargaining channel. Such autonomous individual bargaining should be understood as principle and in its original form, and representative bargaining through representative trade unions should be viewed as exceptional and supplementary. Also, autonomous individual bargaining should be able to be determined by an agreement between labor and management without any restrictions until the deadline for determining the representative trade union. In addition, individual bargaining should be allowed freely through the exclusion of representative bargaining or the individual bargaining obligation in collective agreements by understanding the simplification of the bargaining channels as a relative compulsory regulation.
There is a possibility that the system of determining the bargaining representative union will be operated unconstitutionally and does not fit for justice if the legitimacy of unifying the bargaining windows is found based on the efficiency of a simple bargaining system and the principle of majority decision. As the formation and restriction of fundamental rights are mutually strained, it is hoped that the system of determining the bargaining representative union could be operated constitutionally through unbiased fair interpretation.
This study starts from the review of the meaning of fundamental rights in three basic rights of labor for examining the constitutionality of a system of determining the bargaining representative union. The three basic rights of labor are one of the fundamental rights specifying the right to pursue happiness to realize of human dignity under the Constitution, which is essential to ensure the right to self-determination in the economic life of workers. It is ensuring collective self-determination through solidary activities among workers based on personal autonomy rather than on the right to live ideology. Therefore, it is necessary to consider two purposes which are ‘ensuring collective autonomy’ and ‘securing substantial equivalence through solidarity’ to understand the system of determining the bargaining representative union.
This study believes that the system of determining the bargaining representative union is constitutional only if the system allows for autonomous individual bargaining, and autonomous determination of bargaining units, and it is also necessary to supplement the basis of justification in the decision of the representative bargaining union, and strictly interpret the duty of fair representation to minimize infringement of collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions.
As the system of determining the bargaining representative union restricts minority unions’ rights for collective bargaining, it should be guaranteed to interpret allowing for autonomous individual bargaining, separating the bargaining units, and the duty of fair representation of the representative trade unions and users constitutionally. That is because these three systems are the pillars that support the constitutionality of the system which determines the bargaining representative union.
The autonomous bargaining structure should take precedence in the procedure of collective bargaining. In the autonomous bargaining structure, labor and management should decide on their own whether all trade unions choose individual bargaining or representative bargaining through single bargaining channel. Such autonomous individual bargaining should be understood as principle and in its original form, and representative bargaining through representative trade unions should be viewed as exceptional and supplementary. Also, autonomous individual bargaining should be able to be determined by an agreement between labor and management without any restrictions until the deadline for determining the representative trade union. In addition, individual bargaining should be allowed freely through the exclusion of representative bargaining or the individual bargaining obligation in collective agreements by understanding the simplification of the bargaining channels as a relative compulsory regulation.
There is a possibility that the system of determining the bargaining representative union will be operated unconstitutionally and does not fit for justice if the legitimacy of unifying the bargaining windows is found based on the efficiency of a simple bargaining system and the principle of majority decision. As the formation and restriction of fundamental rights are mutually strained, it is hoped that the system of determining the bargaining representative union could be operated constitutionally through unbiased fair interpretation.
#노동조합
#단체교섭
#단체협약
#복수 노동조합
#단체협약 자치
#단체교섭 창구 단일화
#교섭대표 노동조합
#개별적 단체교섭
#Trade union
#collective bargaining
#collective agreement
#multiple labor unions
#autonomous collective agreement
#system of determining the collective bargaining representative union
#bargaining representative trade union
#individual collective bargaining
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 노동3권과 협약자치
Ⅲ. 한정합헌의 관점에서 본 교섭창구단일화제도
Ⅳ. 교섭창구단일화와 자율적 개별교섭
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
교섭창구 단일화 체계 하에서 소수노조가 갖는 단체교섭권의 범위
노동법포럼
2016 .07
-
간접고용과 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 사업 또는 사업장 교섭단위의 적용을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2020 .03
-
복수노조에서 개별교섭 요건의 재검토
노동법학
2021 .06
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
공무원 단체교섭의 법적 쟁점과 과제 : 최근 재개된 2008 정부공동교섭의 사례를 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .09
-
단수노조와 교섭창구단일화절차
노동법학
2015 .09
-
교섭창구 단일화 제도에 대한 헌법재판소 결정문 읽기 ― 헌재 2012. 4. 24. 2011헌마338 ―
노동법학
2023 .03
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
‘2018 행정부교섭’의 법적·실무상 쟁점 - 교섭창구 단일화, 지부교섭 위임, 절차합의서 등을 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .09
-
교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
교섭창구단일화제도 시행 3년의 평가와 제도 개선 방향
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화 제도에 관한 연구
한양법학
2015 .08
-
교섭단위의 결정법리와 교섭단위의 확대
노동법포럼
2019 .07
-
유일 노동조합하에서의 교섭창구단일화 절차 이행 여부와 쟁의행위의 정당성 : 서울고법 2014.11.27.선고 2014누44191, 44207(병합) 판결
한양법학
2016 .02
-
노사관계측면에서 바라본 교섭창구단일화제도의 현황과 시사점
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
프랑스의 복수노조와 기업단위에서의 단체교섭법제
영남법학
2022 .12
-
단수노조 사업장에서 교섭창구단일화 절차의 이행 및 단수노조에 대한 교섭대표노조로서의 지위 인정 여부
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
권리분쟁 사항과 단체교섭 사항에 대한 재검토
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
교섭대표노조의 법적 지위 관점에서 본 공정대표의무의 의의와 내용
노동법포럼
2016 .02
-
교섭단위 분리 제도의 법적 쟁점
노동법포럼
2018 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2022-336-001070150