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
- 2023.3
- 수록면
- 95 - 141 (47page)
- DOI
- 10.69596/JLL.2023.03.85.95
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Along with the abolition of the ban on multiple trade unions, the single bargaining window system was introduced in Article 29-2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘TULRAA’) and came into force on July 1, 2011.
Since the introduction of TULRAA Article 29-2, it has been controversial whether or not the collective bargaining rights(Article 33 of the Constitution, “to enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining and collective action.”) of minority trade unions have been violated. On April 24, 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 29-2 etc. of TULRAA was constitutional. However, once again, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions(KCTU) has filed a constitutional complaint against it in 2020.
Despite the constitutional decision(2011Hun-Ma338) of the Constitutional Court, the critical views on the single bargaining window system could not be resolved. The critical views is what public interest is to be achieved through the single bargaining window system even while infringing on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions(relevance of ‘public welfare’), whether the need to unify the bargaining windows(establishing an efficient and stable bargaining system and uniformity of working conditions for union members) can serve as a basis for limiting the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions(Whether the legislative purpose is to realize ‘public interest’), whether Article 29-2 of TULRAA should be applied compulsorily. If the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions must be restricted for the realization of the public interest, it is whether there are other means to minimize the infringement other than the majority representative system, which essentially infringes on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions. And whether the current single bargaining window system of the majority representative system essentially infringes on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions.
The current single bargaining window system still maintains the effect of banning multiple unions, and halves the purpose of abolishing the ban on multiple unions and shifting to the principle of free establishment of trade unions. It is not ‘allowing’ multiple unions, but by abolishing the prohibition of multiple unions, guaranteeing the ‘free establishment of trade unions’ as a ‘Ought to exist’, it should also be remembered that multiple unions are not implemented in return for a single bargaining window. It is time to think forward-looking, removing the authoritarian elements from the past regulatory perspective from TULRAA.
Since the introduction of TULRAA Article 29-2, it has been controversial whether or not the collective bargaining rights(Article 33 of the Constitution, “to enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining and collective action.”) of minority trade unions have been violated. On April 24, 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 29-2 etc. of TULRAA was constitutional. However, once again, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions(KCTU) has filed a constitutional complaint against it in 2020.
Despite the constitutional decision(2011Hun-Ma338) of the Constitutional Court, the critical views on the single bargaining window system could not be resolved. The critical views is what public interest is to be achieved through the single bargaining window system even while infringing on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions(relevance of ‘public welfare’), whether the need to unify the bargaining windows(establishing an efficient and stable bargaining system and uniformity of working conditions for union members) can serve as a basis for limiting the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions(Whether the legislative purpose is to realize ‘public interest’), whether Article 29-2 of TULRAA should be applied compulsorily. If the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions must be restricted for the realization of the public interest, it is whether there are other means to minimize the infringement other than the majority representative system, which essentially infringes on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions. And whether the current single bargaining window system of the majority representative system essentially infringes on the collective bargaining rights of minority trade unions.
The current single bargaining window system still maintains the effect of banning multiple unions, and halves the purpose of abolishing the ban on multiple unions and shifting to the principle of free establishment of trade unions. It is not ‘allowing’ multiple unions, but by abolishing the prohibition of multiple unions, guaranteeing the ‘free establishment of trade unions’ as a ‘Ought to exist’, it should also be remembered that multiple unions are not implemented in return for a single bargaining window. It is time to think forward-looking, removing the authoritarian elements from the past regulatory perspective from TULRAA.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
Ⅱ. 헌재 결정 이유와 위헌심사기준
Ⅲ. 결정문 텍스트 읽기
Ⅳ. 복수노조와 교섭창구 단일화 제도의 관계 및 입법사
Ⅴ. 나가는 글
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
-
협약자치와 교섭창구단일화제도
노동법학
2022 .03
-
단수노조와 교섭창구단일화절차
노동법학
2015 .09
-
‘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
-
복수노조의 교섭창구 단일화 제도에 관한 연구
한양법학
2015 .08
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
프랑스의 복수노조와 기업단위에서의 단체교섭법제
영남법학
2022 .12
-
유일 노동조합하에서의 교섭창구단일화 절차 이행 여부와 쟁의행위의 정당성 : 서울고법 2014.11.27.선고 2014누44191, 44207(병합) 판결
한양법학
2016 .02
-
복수노조에서 개별교섭 요건의 재검토
노동법학
2021 .06
-
단수노조 사업장에서 교섭창구단일화 절차의 이행 및 단수노조에 대한 교섭대표노조로서의 지위 인정 여부
노동법포럼
2017 .02
-
공무원 단체교섭의 법적 쟁점과 과제 : 최근 재개된 2008 정부공동교섭의 사례를 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .09
-
권리분쟁 사항과 단체교섭 사항에 대한 재검토
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
노사관계측면에서 바라본 교섭창구단일화제도의 현황과 시사점
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
단체교섭권 보장에 관한 일본 법제도의 성립 및 현황에 관한 일고찰
동아법학
2022 .02
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
교섭창구단일화제도 시행 3년의 평가와 제도 개선 방향
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
교섭창구 단일화 제도하에서의 소수 노동조합의 단체교섭권 보장방안 - 공정대표의무의 실효성 확보방안을 중심으로 -
노동법논총
2023 .04
-
교섭단위의 결정법리와 교섭단위의 확대
노동법포럼
2019 .07
-
교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -
노동법포럼
2017 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2023-336-001343681