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 제42호
- 발행연도
- 2024.7
- 수록면
- 139 - 179 (41page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2024.07.42.139
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Traditionally, the employer who bears the obligation to comply with the labor union’s request for collective bargaining is in a “certain legal relationship” with the workers-that is, a labor contract relationship. The position of precedents is also the same as the foregoing. However, a recent lower court ruling (hereinafter referred to as “the target ruling”) recognizes the original contractor’s obligation to comply with the subcontractor’s labor union’s request for collective bargaining based on “substantial and concrete control and the right to decide” rather than “a certain legal relationship.” This judgment raises strong doubts.
Workers’ collective bargaining (rights) should be understood from the perspective of the legal act of concluding a collective agreement rather than a simple factual act. Collective bargaining can be defined as a “private act that contains elements of legal acts between labor and management.” Therefore, to recognize the original contractor’s obligation to comply with the subcontractor’s labor union’s request, a basis for the occurrence of the obligation is necessary. The most representative basis is the “labor contract,” and the original contractor’s obligation to comply may also be recognized due to “a cause that can be identified with it.” Therefore, a “relative legal relationship based on a special combination” can be formed between the subcontractor’s labor union and the original contractor, justifying the original contractor’s obligation to comply. In short, the target ruling presents “substantial and concrete control and the right to decide” as the cause of the formation of the relative legal relationship resulting from such a special combination.
However, the fact that the target ruling recognizes the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over the subcontractor’s workers and the right to decide on their request is a result that runs completely counter to the grounds for argument that led to the “factual grounds recognized” by the target ruling and the conclusion. This is because the target ruling presupposes a distributor’s shop consignment contract relationship between the original contractor and the subcontractor (i.e., a true subcontracting contract relationship) while actually recognizing the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over and right to make decisions on the working conditions directly linked to the provision of labor by the subcontractor’s workers. If a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the original contractor and the subcontractor’s workers can be recognized based on the substantial and concrete control and right to decide (regardless of its name), it must be explained how the “original contractor’s actual influence on his business (place) (based on his property rights),” “rights to command in the dominant-subordinate relationship,” and “substantial and concrete control and right to decide” can be conceptually distinguished and via which different component markers. However, the target ruling is silent on the foregoing, and it is hard to find a view that presents the contents of the component markers of such substantial and concrete control and the right to decide.
In conclusion, the concept of substantial and concrete control and the right to decide is just a “rhetorical expression” without substance because it cannot be said to be a “certain cause that can be identified with a contract” that can form a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the subcontractor’s workers and the original contractor.
Workers’ collective bargaining (rights) should be understood from the perspective of the legal act of concluding a collective agreement rather than a simple factual act. Collective bargaining can be defined as a “private act that contains elements of legal acts between labor and management.” Therefore, to recognize the original contractor’s obligation to comply with the subcontractor’s labor union’s request, a basis for the occurrence of the obligation is necessary. The most representative basis is the “labor contract,” and the original contractor’s obligation to comply may also be recognized due to “a cause that can be identified with it.” Therefore, a “relative legal relationship based on a special combination” can be formed between the subcontractor’s labor union and the original contractor, justifying the original contractor’s obligation to comply. In short, the target ruling presents “substantial and concrete control and the right to decide” as the cause of the formation of the relative legal relationship resulting from such a special combination.
However, the fact that the target ruling recognizes the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over the subcontractor’s workers and the right to decide on their request is a result that runs completely counter to the grounds for argument that led to the “factual grounds recognized” by the target ruling and the conclusion. This is because the target ruling presupposes a distributor’s shop consignment contract relationship between the original contractor and the subcontractor (i.e., a true subcontracting contract relationship) while actually recognizing the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over and right to make decisions on the working conditions directly linked to the provision of labor by the subcontractor’s workers. If a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the original contractor and the subcontractor’s workers can be recognized based on the substantial and concrete control and right to decide (regardless of its name), it must be explained how the “original contractor’s actual influence on his business (place) (based on his property rights),” “rights to command in the dominant-subordinate relationship,” and “substantial and concrete control and right to decide” can be conceptually distinguished and via which different component markers. However, the target ruling is silent on the foregoing, and it is hard to find a view that presents the contents of the component markers of such substantial and concrete control and the right to decide.
In conclusion, the concept of substantial and concrete control and the right to decide is just a “rhetorical expression” without substance because it cannot be said to be a “certain cause that can be identified with a contract” that can form a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the subcontractor’s workers and the original contractor.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
II. 대상판결의 소개
Ⅲ. 단체교섭(권) 개관
Ⅳ. 단체교섭 요구에 대한 「응낙의무」
V. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
원청의 하청업체 노동조합에 대한 단체교섭의무- 대우조선해양 중노위 판정을 중심으로 -
법학논집
2023 .06
-
노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 원청의 사용자성 - 단체교섭 의무 인정 여부를 중심으로 (부산고등법원 2018. 11. 14. 선고 2018나53149 판결)
사법
2023 .03
-
하청업체 노동조합의 단체교섭 상대방으로서의 원청사업주의 사용자성 —제조업에서의 최근 하급심판결과 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로—
노동법포럼
2022 .07
-
지배기업의 단체교섭 응낙의무에 관한 한국과 일본의 법리 비교
노동법연구
2016 .09
-
실질적 지배력을 가지는 원청의 노조법 상 지위
노동법논총
2021 .04
-
단체교섭에 있어서 원청의 사용자성에 관한 연구(Ⅱ) — CJ대한통운 2심판결(서울고등법원 2024. 1. 24. 선고 2023누34646 판결)을 중심으로 —
사회법연구
2024 .08
-
원청사업주의 실질적 지배력 판단지표
노동법연구
2023 .03
-
원･하청 관계에서 원청의 단체교섭 의무
노동법논총
2022 .08
-
원청사업주의 단체교섭의무와 실질적 지배력 판단기준 및 교섭사항
노동법학
2024 .12
-
원·하청 노동관계의 교섭창구단일화 절차 - 하청노동조합의 원청사업주 교섭단위 참여를 중심으로 -
노동법학
2024 .06
-
단체교섭 응낙의무를 둘러싼 쟁점 - 교섭의제별 판단기준에 관한 검토를 중심으로 -
노동법연구
2023 .03
-
택배회사를 대리점 택배기사에 대해 단체교섭의무를 지는 사용자로 인정한 중앙노동위원회 판정의 의미
노동법연구
2021 .09
-
다층적 고용구조에서의 노동조합법상 사용자 - 단체교섭 의무를 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2025 .03
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
단체교섭의 당사자로서 사용자개념
노동법논총
2021 .04
-
노동조합법상 사용자성에 관한 연구— 단체교섭과 부당노동행위 주체의 비교･분석 —
사회법연구
2023 .04
-
미국의 다면적 노무제공관계에서 단체교섭 응낙의무를 둘러싼 쟁점 -미국 공동사용자 법리와 교섭의무 부담 범위를 중심으로-
성균관법학
2023 .06
-
미국 연방노동관계법상 공동사용자 지위 결정에 관한 규칙 개정의 의미 - 초기업별 교섭에서 사용자 지위 및 교섭의무 판단을 둘러싼 쟁점을 중심으로 -
산업관계연구
2024 .06
-
노조법상 사용자 개념 판단 방식에 대한 비판적인 고찰 - 중노위 판정 검토를 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2022 .07
-
원청의 하청기업 노무제공자 노동조합에 대한 단체교섭의무 – 씨제이대한통운 사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회의 결정을 중심으로 –
노동법논총
2022 .08
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-090286609