사법분야 투고논문 : 쟁의행위 기간 중 근로계약의 법적 성격과 그 효과

강성태 ( Seong Tae Kang ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.30 No.1

Paragraph (1) of Article 33 in the Constitution provides all workers with the right to collective action in order to enhance working conditions. For securing the right to collective action pursuant to the Constitution, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(hereafter ``the Act``) confirms the protections for "industrial action" which means actions or counter-actions that obstruct the normal operation of a business, such as strikes, sabotage, lock-outs, or other activities through which the parties to labor relations intend to achieve their claims; restriction on civil claims for damages because of industrial action(article 3),limitation of criminal claims against industrial action of trade unions(article 4) and prohibition of dismissal of or discrimination against a worker on the grounds of participation in lawful collective activities(subsection 5 of article 81).The Supreme Court, however, has decided that all kinds of protections under the Act could be given only in the case that the industrial action might satisfy with four requirements of ``lawful industrial action``: 1) the industrial action should be begun and led by a body which must be qualified to a representative in collective bargaining such as a trade union; 2) the purposes of the industrial action should be to facilitate self-governing negotiation or bargaining between labor and management for the enhancement of working terms and conditions; 3) the industrial action should be begun only after the employer rejected collective bargaining by the specific requests of workers and it should obey the procedures required by applicable laws and regulations including vote of majority of union members for strike; 4) means or ways of industrial action should be harmonized with the employer`s property right and shall not take any exercise of violence. Because of these restricted legitimacy of case law, a strike might be illegal very easily. This paper argues that the case laws concerning industrial action have gone beyond the protection of the right to collective action under the Constitution so that they have to be changed. Dealing with the problems concerning as the effect of industrial action to employment relationship, the Court has taken a theory of ``suspension of employment relationship``. According to the theory, the parties of employment contract, an employee and an employer, should not fulfill each one`s primary duty; duty to work of an employee and duty to pay a wage of an employer. The Court have also required the four conditions of ``lawful industrial action`` in application of ``suspension of employment relationship`` effect. This paper argues that an interpretation of employment relationship during industrial action should be changed into the way harmonized with the purpose of protection of the right to collective action.

쟁의행위에 대한 위력 업무방해죄 적용의 타당성 여부 : 대법원 2011. 3. 17. 선고 2007도482 전원합의체판결을 중심으로

최린아 이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원 2012 Ewha Law Review Vol.2 No.1

In Korea, since 1990, the courts and scholars have held that while labor union’s industrial action, including collective labor strike, constituted a forcible obstruction of work under Article 314 of the criminal law, ‘justifiable’ industrial action pursuant to the labor law was legal. Recently, however, the Constitutional Court overruled its previous opinion on industrial action holding that industrial action was basically justifiable, and satisfying the elements of the article 314 did not necessarily made it illegal(exceptional illegality). Based on the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Supreme Court(17th March 2011, 2007do482 unanimous opinion) decided that justifiable industrial action, regardless of its lawfulness, which did not satisfy the elements of obstruction of business, was not an illegal action under the article 314. Also, it was a major progress for the Supreme Court to interpret ‘coercion’ limitedly, holding that even collective labor strike that was not justified as industrial action was not necessarily coercive under the article 314. However, this Supreme Court’s decision failed to apply the limited interpretation about ‘coercion’ to the facts. In addition, it has some other interpretative problems. In the decision, the major issue was whether the labors’ collective refusal to work, which interfered with the employer’s business and caused loss, violated the article 314. Therefore, this article, as a critical review on the decision, discusses, first, whether collective labor strike is an intentional action or not, second, a standard of “coercion”, third, whether the action of this case can be punished by obstruction of work under article 314 of the criminal law as ‘coercion’. Lastly, this article discusses whether the article 314 of Criminal Law violates the principle of nulla poena and the possibility of limited application of the article 314 in the case of industrial action. 1990년 이래로 우리나라의 학설과 판례는 ‘소극적인 근로제공 중단’ 즉, ‘단순 파업’도 원칙적으로 「형법」 제314조 위력에 의한 업무방해죄의 구성요건에 해당하고 다만 노동법상의 요건을 갖춘 정당한 쟁의행위에 해당하는 경우에는 위법성이 조각된다고 보아왔다. 그런데 최근 헌법재판소는 쟁의행위에 대하여 원칙적으로 정당하고 “당연히 업무방해죄의 구성요건에 해당하여 원칙적으로 불법한 것이라고 볼 수는 없다”고 하여 쟁의행위에 대한 기존의 태도를 사실상 변경하였다. 이에 따라 대상 판결은 정당한 쟁의행위는 위법성 유무의 판단 이전에 업무방해죄의 구성요건 해당성 자체를 충족시키지 않는다고 하여 쟁의행위를 원칙적으로 형법상 위법행위에서 제외한 데에 의의가 있다. 또한 ‘단순 파업’이 쟁의행위로서 정당성이 없는 경우에도 언제나 「형법」 제314조의 위력에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다고 하여 위력의 개념을 제한하여 해석한 것은 종래 태도에 비추어 진일보한 것이라고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 대상 판결은 이러한 점을 다수의견에서 설시하면서도 그 의의를 사실관계에 구체적으로 적용하는 데에는 실패하였으며, 해석상 문제점을 다수 가지고 있다. 본 판결에서는 근로자들이 집단적으로 근로의 제공을 거부하여 사용자의 정상적인 업무운영을 저해하고 손해를 발생하게 한 행위가 업무방해죄에 해당하는지 여부가 주된 쟁점이므로, 이 글에서는 본 판결을 비판적으로 분석하여 먼저 ‘단순 파업’을 작위적 행위로 볼 수 있는지 여부에 대하여 논하고, 둘째로 ‘위력’ 해당여부의 판단기준에 대하여 논하며, 셋째로 앞의 논의를 바탕으로 본 판결의 대상이 된 행위에 대하여 작위 또는 부작위에 의한 위력 업무방해죄의 성립을 인정할 수 있는지 여부를 검토한다. 나아가 위력 업무방해죄의 죄형법정주의 위반 여부, 노동쟁의에 대한 업무방해죄 적용의 축소 가능성에 대하여 연구한다.

우리나라 집단노동법의 형성과정과 외국법의 영향

배인연 노동법이론실무학회 2015 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.16

Korea has steadily introduced labor policies in response to the labor movements the era of US military government came after the period of Japanese occupation. However, Japan didn’t have notable collective labor policies other than proposing of a draft of『 the Trade Union Act』 in 1925 and forcing mediation for the labor disputes on the public business by 『the Labor Disputes Mediation Act』 in 1926. Rather Japan has continued to suppress the workers' movements by governmental authority such as 『the Security Policy Act』 until GHQ’s governing. And Japan has enacted『 the Trade Union Act』,『 the Labor Mediation Act』 and『 the Constitution』 in 1945 and 1946 by the GHQ with the similar contents as the present. Their main contents are the constitutional guarantee of the basic labor rights『( Constitution』 Article 28), negative and positive requirements of the trade union『( the Trade Union Act』, Article 2), the principle of report in establishing trade union(Article 5 of the Act), the collective action immunity(Article 1 paragraph 2 of the Act) and civil immunity (Article 12 of the Act), incorporation of a trade union(Article 11 of the Act), the normative effect and general binding of a collective agreements, voluntarism for the mediation (Article 25 of the Act), and etc. And the GHQ has amended 『the Trade Labor Act』 in 1949 of which contains major amendments as follows; changing from duty of registering of a union establishment to free of a union establishment, strengthening independence of labor unions, restricting the intervention of the administrative authorities toward labor unions, introduction of the unfair labor practices, and etc. In Korea, Collective labor policies have been in progress since 1945; Suppression of industrial action by the mediation system, the requirements of a democratic trade union, trade union registration system, Limitation of industrial action by the definition of the labor dispute, limitation of the economic purpose of the union activities, the exclusive bargaining representative system, the exclusion of political movements of a union activity, unfair labor practices and etc. So in terms of its content and process, they have been carried out on their own regardless to Japan and they have been reflected in『 the collective labor act』 in Korea. Although the format of the constitutional labor rights in Korea is similar to the one in Japan, considering the process of the legislation or the nature of the constitutional labor rights which is basically the right of freedom,『 the Korean Constitution』 doesn’t seem to inherited『 the Japanese Constitution』 as it was and in my opinion, from the fact that Korea and Japan had stipulated the collective action in their『 Constitutions』, they have been affected by『 the French Constitution』. In the collective labor law, the mediation system, the obligation to the mediation, the definition of the labor dispute, and unfair labor practices were introduced from American labor legal system. The prohibition of political activities by trade unions seems to be Korea’s selfdeveloped system. The normative effect of the collective was intruduced to Korea from the German’s collective agreement order( 『Tarifvertragsordnung』) in 1918 via Japan, and the civil immunity for industrial action from the UK’s『 the labor dispute law』 『( Trade disputeact』) in 1945 via Japan’s『 the labor Union Law』 since such system did not yet exist in Korea and Japan. And Korea has introduced an exclusive bargaining system from America in the period of U.S Military government of which was not discussed in Japan at that time. Although the trade union registration system and the requirements of a trade union have been implemented by the U.S military government in our country, the trade union registration system seems to had been introduced from Japan to Korea since such system was existed in Japan’s the Trade Union ac...

The Impact of Industrial Action Ballots on Trade Union Procedures, Practices and Behaviour

Graeme Lockwood 한국고용노사관계학회 2005 産業關係硏究 Vol.15 No.1

This article provides an analysis of the developments that have taken place within British case-study trade unions in response to the introduction of the Conservative balloting legislation pertaining to ballots on industrial action. Using data derived from interviews with senior officials, national officials and shop stewards it links any changes in the unions’ approaches to calling, organising or conducting industrial action to the introduction of the new legislation. It considers the impact of industrial action ballots on the procedures, practices and behaviour of trade unions and, more specifically, whether workers under the new balloting system seemed more inclined to vote to avoid confrontation with employers and, in so doing, took a less conflictual and more accommodating stance than would have been the case under the old legislative provisions.

첨단기술의 유출방지를 위한 관련법규의 형사법적 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구

홍민지 ( Min-ji Hong ) 한국지식재산연구원 2008 지식재산연구 Vol.3 No.1

This research studies problems of certain laws and regulations in a criminal law aspect, which are established to effectively protect high technology and prevent infringement where advanced information and technology of domestic corporations are leaked to competing countries, causing great losses to related corporations and the national economy. The study examines criminal-law-related problems of a special law, the 'law for leak prevention and protection of industrial technology', which was legislated in 2006 and became effective in April 2007, and provides plans to improve the overall laws and regulations related to high technology leak prevention. Of all special laws, many questions have been raised regarding the most recently established and enforced 'law for leak prevention and protection of industrial technology' even before the law was established. The questions include provisions defining the concept of subjects of protection, provisions on forms of leaks and infringement acts, and criminal punishment clauses. Although numerous examinations have been made regarding such problems, certain parts are still remaining in the law which may raise issues in a criminal law perspective. Therefore, improvement plans are proposed regarding the laws for prevention of unfair competition and protection of trade secrets where the criminal-law-related issues have been much discussed, whereas the discussion is centered around the industrial technology leak prevention law in the part of 'examination of criminal-law-related problems' of the same law. The proposed improvement plans for the current laws and regulations related to preventing high technology leaks are discussed in two separate parts - provisions on criminal penalties and provisions on criminal actions. Improvement plans for the provisions on criminal actions are discussed in two parts of legal procedures and investigation practice. In the conclusion, the overall research discussed is summarized and proposals are provided for prevention of illegal leaks and infringement of high technology and effective protection of high technology.

2019년도 소비자법 연구의 동향

김세준 한국소비자법학회 2020 소비자법연구 Vol.6 No.1

Also in 2019, consumer law research has been very active in various fields. In particular, researchers are working to solve the problem of new consumer law problems (e.g, sharing economy). The scope of research is also expanding. In other words, the social role that consumer law research should perform is more important than ever. The process of investigating, collecting, classifying, and analyzing the research results of the consumer law, which has been conducted for one year, has the meaning of making it easier for researchers and practitioners to grasp the current research status and provide convenience for research. The process itself is also an effort to draw closer to the ultimate goal of consumer protection. The consumer law research of 2019 was categorized into 11 issues. Most notable among them is the issue of consumer protection in the 4th industrial revolution. In recent years there has been a continual research on this issue. However, in terms of research in 2019, this issue has now become a key theme in consumer law. This topic generally includes research on coping with technological innovations such as artificial intelligence, research on the sharing economy, and research on regulatory reform. In addition, future research on consumer law needs to expand not only the scope but also the research methodology. In this regard, the use of law and economy research methods can be considered. 2019년에도 소비자법의 연구는 다양한 분야에서 매우 활발하게 이루어졌다. 특히 공유경제 플랫폼 등에서 새로운 소비자법의 문제가 끊임없이 발생하고 있는 상황에서 연구자들이 그에 관한 법률문제를 해결하기 위해 시의적절하게 노력하고 있다는 점을 확인할 수 있다. 연구의 범위 역시 점차 확장되고 있다. 즉 그 어느 때 보다도 소비자법의 연구가 수행해야 하는 사회적 역할이 중요한 시점이다. 1년간 이루어진 소비자법의 연구성과를 조사 · 수집 · 분류 · 분석하는 과정은 연구자들은 물론 실무가들에게도 연구현황을 개괄적으로 파악할 수 있게 함과 동시에 후속 연구 등에 편의를 제공하는 의미가 있다. 또한 이 과정 자체도 곧 소비자의 권리보호라고 하는 소비자법의 궁극적인 목표에 가까워질 수 있는 노력이기도 하다. 2019년의 소비자법 연구를 크게 11가지의 쟁점으로 분류해보았으나, 그중 가장 핵심적으로 부각되는 것은 4차 산업혁명시대의 소비자보호 문제인 것으로 보인다. 최근 몇 년 동안 이 쟁점에 관련된 소비자보호문제가 다양한 측면에서 꾸준히 다루어져 왔으나, 2019년의 연구양상을 보건대 이제는 이 주제가 소비자법의 핵심적인 축으로서 자리 잡기에 이르렀다. 이 연구주제는, 인공지능 등 기술혁신에 대응하고자 하는 연구, 공유경제 환경에 관한 연구, 규제개선에 관한 연구 등을 일반적으로 포함한다. 또한 향후 소비자법의 연구는 그 범위의 확장뿐만 아니라 연구방법론의 확장도 필요하다고 본다. 이에 관해 법경제학적 연구방법의 활용을 제안하고자 한다.

노동법에 있어 사회통념과 정당성

신권철(申權澈) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2016 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.40

노동법은 근로계약을 넘어서는 종속노동을 규율대상으로 삼는다. 그래서 노동법은 계약이 아니라 사실을, 의사표시가 아니라 실현된 노동을 자신의 근거로 삼을 수 있다. 노동법이 노동과정에서 일어나는 다양한 사실과 힘관계를 바탕으로 규범을 정립할 때 근로자는 인격적 주체가 될 수 있다. 근로자가 근로계약에서는 대등한 당사자였다고 하더라도 노동과정에서는 결코 대등한 당사자가 될 수 없는 이유는 근로계약 자체를 통해 인격적 주체성을 제약당하기 때문이다. 그것을 노동법은 종속관계라 표현한다. 예컨대, 근로자가 사업조직에 편입되어 징계의 대상이 될 수 있다는 것은 결코 대등한 당사자 사이에서 벌어지는 계약관계라고 보기 어려운 점이다. 이러한 근로자의 종속관계를 극복하는 두 가지 방법 중 하나가 힘의 대등성을 확보하는 방법으로서 근로자의 단결과 파업을 보장하는 것이고, 다른 하나의 방법이 사용자의 지배행위(인사, 해고, 취업규칙 변경 등)에 대한 사법심사이다. 사용자의 권한행사가 언제든 노동법에 의해 무효화될 수 있는 법리는 사용자를 심사숙고하게 만든다. 근로관계에서의 행위(인사, 징계, 해고, 쟁의행위 등)에 대한 사법심사는 법원의 해석과 판단기준에 따른 것이고, 거기에는 알게 모르게 ‘사회통념’이 반영된다. 사회통념은 법원이 추종하는 것일 수도 있고, 거꾸로 법원이 선도하는 것일수도 있다. 본 글에서는 노동법에 있어 사회통념에서 드러나는 합리성과 정당성의 문제를 각 영역별(해고, 취업규칙, 쟁의행위)로, 그리고 시간순으로 판례의 태도를 검토해 보고, 노동법상 정당성의 문제가 합리성의 문제로 대치(代置)되어가고 있는 상황을 되짚어보고자 한다. Labor law regulates subordination work beyond labor contract. Employee is not legally and realistically equal to employer in labor relations. On account of unequal labor relations labor law control employers’ power. Employers have a power to dismiss and the right of personnel management. In Korea, Employers have a power to make working rules. Labor law play a role of controling employer‘s power by judicial review. In Labor Standards act, employer’s dismissal demands justifiable cause. Dismissal without justification is invalid. But in judical precedents, a dismissal shall, if it is not considered to be appropriate in general societal terms be invalid. In supreme court decisions, a disciplinary measure against workers may be found illegal under circumstances where the measure severely lacks validity in accordance with social norms, and recognizable as an abuse of discretionary power. Korean Supreme Court consider social norm or socially accepted idea as a standard of judicial review when judging employer’s dismissal or personnel management and union’s industrial action. This study analyzes supreme court decisions on the justification of dismissal, making or changing ‘working rules and industrial actions. Korean Supreme Court takes a rational or economic attitude on the employer’s dismissal or union’s industrial actions. Legal justification in labor law is replaced by economic needs or economic rationality in terms of a socially accepted idea or social norms.

업무방해죄에 있어서 쟁의행위의 정당성

유각근 국민대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.32 No.3

이 글은 하나의 명제의 타당성과 그 함의를 검토하는 것이다. 그 명제란, 기존의 위법성조각사유는 불법결여로서 불법조각사유와 정당성귀속으로서정당화사유로 분할되어야 한다는 것이다. 가령 도박죄에서의 ‘일시오락의 정도’에 관한 구절의 의미는, 경미한 도박은 불법하지 않다는 것이다. 이것은 도박죄를 정의함에 있어서 적극적정의만으로는 불법평가와 일치시킬 수 없는 언어적 한계에 연유하는 것이다. 가치평가와 언어가 일치할 아무런 이유가 없기 때문에 불법조각사유는불가피하다. 엄밀하게 범죄를 정의하려고 하면 독일형법에서처럼 추상적인 위법성표지–위법하게, 정당한 이유 없이–나 소극적 문장이 불가피하다. 이러한 사유들이 불법조각사유들이다. 한편 범인에 대한 영장체포는, 단순한 불법의 결여가 아니라, 정당성이 귀속되는 정당한 행위이다. 정당방위 등 정당화사유는 정당한 행위로서 앞의 불법조각사유와는 본질이 다르다. 영미형법체계에 있어서는, 이 둘이 명확하게 분할되어 있는 것에서도, 이러한 ‘분할명제’의 타당성을 확인할 수 있다. 즉 불법조각사유는 ‘범죄수정항변’으로, 정당화사유는 정당화항변으로, 명확하게 구분되어 있다. 미국모범형법전은 강요죄나 공갈죄도, 소극적 문장의 범죄수정항변이 규정되어 있으며, 개별범죄의 범죄수정항변의 수는 약 23개에 달한다. 이렇게 불법조각사유와 정당화사유를 분할하면, 불법조각사유는 소극적구성요건이라고 해야 한다. 왜냐하면 불법의 귀속에 관한 것으로, 이것을포함해야 구성요건 –범죄의 정의- 이 완결되기 때문이다. 이것은 구성요건과 위법성을 구별하는 기존의 범죄체계론을 수정해야 한다는 것을 의미한다. 그 외에 많은 개별적 논점들에 근원적으로 영향을 미친다. 이런 관점에서 보면 최근 한국에서 쟁의행위와 업무방해죄에 관한 헌법재판소와대법원의 대립은 위법성조각사유의 미분화와 혼동에 의한 하나의 해프닝이었다고 할 수 있다. This is a unique legal case that constitutional court and supreme court of one country participated. And the theoretical conclusion of that case is that the elements of offense definition and facts of justification defense can be replaced mutually. In German theory of Jurisprudence, Tatbestand(the elements of offense definition) and Rechtsfertigunsgründe (grounds of justification defense) are different absolutely, so the replacement of them cannot be imagined. But the practical evidence of replacement in this case means that the theoretical validity of the established criminal jurisprudence is questionable. The way to get out of our theoretical dilemma is dividing the justification grounds into two ; One is the grounds of excluding wrongfulness, and the other is grounds of justification. The first step of criminal jurisprudence is to define the offense. Defining offense is imputation of wrongfulness. Positive imputation of wrongfulness is to say that a specific act is a offense. And negative imputation of wrongfulness is to say that a specific act is not a offense because attendant circumstances exclude the wrongfulness from that act. The former is the ground of wrongfulness imputation. The latter is the ground of wrongfulness exclusion. All of these, imputation and exclusion of wrongfulness, are the subsumption(Tatbestandsmäßigkeit) of the elements of defined offense. The distinction between the grounds of justification and exclusion of wrongfulness is natural in American criminal theory. The grounds of wrongfulness exclusion is offense modification defense in American criminal law. And the grounds of justification is justification defense. Offense modification defense authorized acquittal of a defendant, even though his conduct satisfies the offense elements, when the underlying purpose proscribed by that offense is negated by the conditions that constitute the defense. By contrast, justification defense is one that defines conduct which under some circumstances is socially acceptable and which is outweighed the harm by furthering a greater societal interest. After all, our argument is to introduce the offense modification defense in existing theory of crime as grounds of wrongfulness exclusion. So finally, we can unify the system theory of crime.

쟁의행위에 대한 가처분의 유형과 한계

정승규 한국비교노동법학회 2009 노동법논총 Vol.16 No.-

Union workers have a right to withhold their labor, that is to strike including stoppage of work, concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations by employees. Hence, as a general principle, employers can't penalize employees or discriminate against them because they exercised the right to strike. Strikers who engage in certain types of unlawful conduct lose their statutory right or regal protection. Moreover employers may institute injuction(provisional disposition) as a major legal tool to combat unionism. Some authors have suggested that injunctions against strikes issued by court may protect the sanctity of labor contracts against the threat of union interference. But constitutionnal spirits force us to recognize the benefits of collective bargaining, outlaw the yellow-dog contracts, remove labor-management disputes from the threat of national court injunctions. Among other things, when such an injunction is issued, there must be rigorous limitations upon the availability of injunctions in labor disputes. The right of worker's strike is guranteed by a contitutional law, it admits the use of force in legal system. If so, the imployer's counteractions are admitted within of law system. this spirits should be understood as a appearance of not civil law but labor laws.

노동분쟁해결절차에 관한 국가간 비교분석 -한국과 중국의 노동쟁의처리제도를 중심으로-

정승규 ( Seong Kyou Jeong ) 청주대학교 법학과 2009 法學論集 Vol.31 No.1