쟁의행위의 정당성 판단과 권리분쟁

김소영(Kim, Soh - Yeong) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.2

우리 학설과 판례는 그 동안 노사간에 주장의 불일치로 인하여 발생하는 분쟁을 권리분쟁과 이익분쟁으로 구분하고, 이를 쟁의행위의 정당성 판단과 연계하여 해석해왔다. 이와 관련하여 권리분쟁이 쟁의행위의 대상에 포함되는지 여부, 나아가 권리분쟁을 대상으로 하는 쟁의행위의 목적의 정당성 여부가 학계를 중심으로 논의되어 왔다. 권리분쟁을 대상으로 하는 쟁의행위의 정당성을 부인하는 입장은 1998년 노조법 개정으로 노조법 제2조 5호의 ‘노동쟁의’가 노사간에 근로조건의 「결정」에 관한 주장의 불일치로 인하여 발생한 분쟁상태로 정의되면서 권리분쟁은 노동쟁의에 포함되지 않는다고 주장한다. 그러나 권리분쟁에 대하여 민사소송 등 다른 구제절차가 열려 있다고 해서 권리분쟁을 목적으로 하는 쟁의행위의 정당성을 부인하는 논리는 집단적 노사자치의 원리에 맞지 않는다. 이는 근로조건의 향상을 위하여 단체행동권을 인정한 헌법 제33조 제1항을 부당하게 제한하는 해석론이다. 현실적으로 법원이나 노동위원회에 의한 권리분쟁 해결시스템이 갖추어져 있다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서 권리분쟁에 관한 사항이 쟁의행위의 목적으로서 정당한가 여부에 관해서는 우리나라의 단체교섭구조와 단체협약제도에 대한 해석론, 노사분쟁해결 시스템의 문제점을 바탕으로 헌법의 노동기본권 보장 취지에 따라 판단해야 한다. In Korea, right of collective action is guaranteed as fundamental labor rights of workers by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees workers’ three labor rights as follows. Article 33(1) of the Constitution stipulates that “to enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action.” Fundamental labor rights of the Constitution should be shaped into the promotive institution through labor legislation. Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) is to improve the working conditions and to improve the economic and social status of workers by securing the workers’ rights of collective action pursuant to the Constitution. TULRAA is subordinate to the Constitution, and then TULRAA’s lawmaker should enact the provisions about the labor relations and the court should execute the law comply with the guiding philosophy on the Constitution. From the constitutional standpoint, industrial action is constitutionally expected normal phenomenons as a process of exercise of worker’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is undisputed that the right to “act collectively” includes the right to strike. No employer shall claim damages against a trade union or workers in cases where he/she has suffered damages because of industrial action under the TULRAA. Therefore industrial actions must be “justifiable” in order to be protected by the TULRAA, and the Constitution is understood to be predicated on the same requirement. But there is no definition of “justifiability” in the TULRAA except the proviso of Article 37 (1) which says that no industrial action, in its purposes, and processes, shall violate legislations and public order. That is, de novo, industrial action was not allowed by the law. The courts usually look into the objective and the manner of industrial action by strict interpretations owing to the legal forms such as passive statutory immunities, not based on the workers’ fundamental labor right. The standard of “justifiability” can vary according to the objective of the industrial action whether it was justifiable or not. There is some controversy whether rights dispute is justifiable. The Supreme Court has consistently refused such a position as the rights dispute can be an objective of the industrial action, contending that TULRAA permit the trade union to act collectively for interests dispute. Decision of the Supreme Court base on the definition of the term “labor disputes” of the Article 2 (5) of TULRAA which provides that the term “labor disputes” means any controversy or difference arising from disagreement between the trade union and employer or employees association concerning “the determination” of terms and conditions of employment such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, other treatment, etc. But the judiciary should recognize the rights dispute as justifiable objective of industrial action at an affirmative view based on the workers’fundamental labor right. The industrial action of workers should be recognized in a wider level based on the fundamental labor rights of the Constitution, because the civil suits for damages caused by industrial action for large amount are maliciously used as means to fundamentally block the basic right of workers.

집단적 노동법 70년 회고와 과제 ― 단체교섭과 쟁의행위를 중심으로 ―

추장철,박지순 한국노동법학회 2023 노동법학 Vol.- No.88

With the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on July 17, 1948, a new turning point was established in the history of Korea's labor movement and labor law. In other words, the right to organize, bargain collectively, and take collective action were guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution. The first labor legislation based on the Constitution was enacted five years after the Constitution was enacted. After the military coup on May 16, 1961, the military government recognized the importance of labor policy and tried to seriously address labor issues along with the development of a long-term economic plan. On December 27, 1972, the Yushin(Revitalization) Constitution was promulgated. Accordingly, the contents of Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees basic labor rights, were also revised to ensure that the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action are guaranteed within the scope prescribed by law, and to public officials, the state, local governments, state-run enterprises, public enterprises, or the national economy. The right to collective action of workers in businesses with significant influence can now be restricted or not recognized in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic, revised by national referendum on October 22, 1980, specified basic labor rights in Articles 30 and 31 of the Constitution. Article 33 of the newly revised Constitution (October 29, 1987) stipulates the three labor rights. Article 33 guarantees labor's three primary rights without reservation in law. However, with regard to the right to collective action, the scope of the restrictions has been greatly relaxed so that it can be restricted or not recognized for workers working in major defense industries as stipulated by law. In line with the purpose of guaranteeing the labor's three primary rights in accordance with the change of government in 2022, the exercise of legal rights to maintain and improve working conditions will be thoroughly guaranteed, but in cases of abuse or misuse of these rights, the rule of law will ensure that privileges and preferential treatment do not occur. By doing so, the government's strong commitment to the so-called rule of law between labor and management was presented so that fair and reasonable labor-management relations could develop. Through this, the labor union will also increase accounting transparency, strengthen its internal responsibility to its members, and prevent illegal and unfair collusion with employers in relation to hiring and finances to prevent the rights of non-union members and members of other labor unions from being unfairly infringed. The role of law was strengthened. Future policy tasks for collective bargaining are to stabilize labor-management relations by not legislating the validity period of the collective agreement so that it is left to labor and management to reduce negotiation costs and prevent unnecessary disputes from occurring, or by specifying a longer period than the current period even if it is legalized. It is judged to be reasonable to do so. Under the principle of private autonomy, it may be desirable to leave the subject of collective bargaining to the autonomy of labor and management, but whether or not the subject of collective bargaining is subject to collective bargaining has become a subject of great dispute during the collective bargaining process between labor and management, and the judgment of unfair labor practices and the legitimacy of industrial action due to refusal of collective bargaining Since it is also a problem in judgment, etc., there is a need to regulate the subject of negotiation with some standards in the law. As a policy task to ensure labor-management balance in industrial action, there is a need to introduce procedures such as postal voting and voting notification to ensure fairness and strictness in the procedure for initiating industrial actio...

노동3권 보장과 쟁의행위의 개념 및 민·형사상 면책의 의미

한광수(Han, Gwang-soo) 한국비교노동법학회 2013 노동법논총 Vol.27 No.-

The Constitution explicitly protects the right to take Collective Action as basic workers’ rights. Although Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provide regulations associated with the right to collective action, its practice is restricted. The Labor Union Act provide us with Labor dispute and Industrial Action. Article 3. and Article 4. include the provisions to reduce the burden on workers from Industrial Action and Collective Bargaining; “No employer shall claim damages against a trade union or workers in cases where he/she has suffered damage because of collective bargaining or industrial action under this Act” and “The provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Code shall apply to justifiable activities undertaken to achieve the purpose of Article 1 as collective bargaining, industrial action, or other activities by trade unions”. Three fundamental workers’ rights are labour rights regulated by the Constitution. These are the right adopted in many countries as well as the international norms admitted by UN and ILO. There is no doubt that industrial action is considered as the the practice of the right to collective action. The Industrial Action called ‘union’, ‘dispute situation’, ‘their claims achievement’, ‘use of force’ has already included illegal substances. Employers lodged a compensation claim against the exercise of the workers’ rightto strike, which is used state punishment power if it comes to that. It is said that it is an unfair practice, the conduct should be limited. If workers are going to take Industrial Action, it is certain that it is done in a fair way. Moreover, it is required to establish the concept of the industrial action that are not included collective action. Limitaion or restrictions of actions that are not included in the concept of the industrial action will be applied.

공무원노동조합에 관한 비교법적 연구 - 노동3권의 인정범위를 중심으로 -

최경애,김상겸 국민대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.32 No.2

우리나라 공무원의 노동조합 설립 및 운영 등에 관한 법률은 2005년에제정되었다. 공무원노동조합은 그 이전부터 활동하였다. 우리나라가 공무원노동조합 설립에 시간이 많이 걸린 것은 1948년 헌법에 명시적인 규정이 없었기 때문이다. 직업공무원제도도 1960년 헌법에서 처음으로 명문화되었다. 공무원의 노동3권은 1962년 헌법에서 처음 제한적으로 언급되었다. 이 내용이 현행 헌법에까지 그대로 규정되어 있다. 헌법은 공무원인 근로자를 제외한 공무원에게는 노동3권을 보장하지않음으로써, 오랫동안 공무원에게는 노동조합 결성권이 허용되지 않았다. 국가공무원법에서는 사실상 노무에 종사하는 공무원의 노동운동은 예외로 하는 규정을 두어 노무에 종사하는 공무원에 대해서는 노동3권을 인정하였다. 헌법과 법률에 따라 ‘사실상 노무에 종사하는 공무원’은 노동3권을 보장받았다. 그런데 2005년 공무원의 노동조합 설립 및 운영 등에 관한 법률이 시행되면서, 일정 범위의 공무원은 노동조합의 결성권인 단결권과 단체교섭권을 행사할 수 있게 되었다. 법의 시행으로 공무원의 노동운동이활성화되었지만, 사실상 노무에 종사하는 공무원을 제외한 공무원노조에가입한 공무원에게는 단체행동권이 없다. 이는 국가공무원법 제66조 제1항이 공무원에게 집단행위를 금지하면서 노동운동도 금지하는 것에서찾아볼 수 있다. 이렇게 관련법은 공무원노조에 가입한 공무원의 단체행동권을 금지하고 있고, 정치운동도 금지하고 있다. 우리나라 공무원의 노동3권의 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 외국의 경우와 비교해보는 것도 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 공무원의 노동기본권 보장문제는 해당 국가의 공무원제도와 밀접한 관련이 있다. 공무원제도는 국가마다 차이가 있는데, 이는 공무원제도의 역사적 발전과정과 특성, 정치적상황과 경제적⋅사회적 환경이 서로 다르기 때문이다. 직업공무원제도를헌법에서 보장하고 있는 우리나라와 독일, 일본 등은 직업공무원에게 단체행동권을 허용하지 않고 있다. 특히 독일의 경우 직업공무원의 노동조합에는 단체교섭권도 부여하고 있지 않다. 그리고 미국의 경우도 연방공무원에게는 단체행동권을 허용하지 않고 있다. 공무원에게 단체행동권을 허용하지 않는 국가들의 특징은 공무원의 신분보장의 강도가 그렇지 않은 국가보다 크다. 우리나라에서 공무원노동조합의 단체행동권 불인정문제가 논란이 되고 있지만, 미국, 독일과 일본, 심지어 프랑스까지 공무원들에 대하여 단체행동권을 인정하지 않거나 제한적으로 인정하고 있는 것을 보면 단체행동권의 인정 여부에 대해서는신중을 기해야 할 것이다. 그리고 공무원의 정치활동과 관련하여 직업공무원제도를 변경하여 정년제도 등을 바꾸지 않는 한 허용하기 어려울 것이다. 이에 관해서는 신중한 접근이 필요하다. The Act on the Establishment and Operation, etc., of Public Officials' Trade Unions was enacted in 2005. Public Officials' Trade Unions have been active since. It took a long time for Korea to establish a Public Officials' Trade Unions, because there was no explicit provision in the 1948 Constitution. The vocational civil service system was also first documented in the 1960 Constitution. The three labor rights of public officials were first limitedly mentioned in the 1962 Constitution. This is still in the current Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee the three labor rights to civil servants, except for employees who are civil servants, so for a long time public servants were not allowed to form trade unions. The State Public Officials Act , with the exception of the labor movement of officials engaged in labor, actually granted three labor rights to public officials engaged in labor. According to the Constitution and the law, in fact, public officials engaged in labor are guaranteed three labor rights. However, in 2005, the Act on the Establishment and Operation, etc., of Public Officials' Trade Unions was enacted, allowing a range of officials to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. Although the labor movement of civil servants has been activated by the enforcement of the law, officials who join the trade unions, except for public officials engaged in labor, have no right to collective action. This can be found in Article 66 (1) of State Public Officials Act , which prohibits collective action from public officials and prohibits the labor movement. In this way, the law prohibits the right of collective action of public officials who join the civil union, and prohibits political movements. In order to solve the problem of three labor rights of Korean public officials, it is also important to compare them with foreign ones. The issue of guaranteeing the basic labor rights of public officials is closely related to the civil service system of the country. The civil service system varies from country to country because of the historical development and characteristics of the public officials system, the political situation and the economic and social environment. Korea, Germany, and Japan, which guarantee the vocational public officials system in the Constitution, do not allow the right of collective action to vocational public officials. In Germany, in particular, trade unions are not given the right to collective bargaining. And in the US, federal officials are not allowed to take collective action. In order to solve the problem of the three labor rights of korean public officials, the characteristics of countries that do not allow the right of collective action to foreign officials are greater than that of those who do not. In Korea, the issue of disapproval of the right to collective action of civil service unions has been controversial. You will have to wait. In addition, it will be difficult to allow the public officials system unless it changes the retirement age system by changing the vocational public officials system. This requires a careful approach.

조합활동과 사용자 권리에 관한 연구

조규식 원광대학교 대학원 2007 論文集 Vol.38 No.-

In Korea, most of union activities occur during the office hours, using the company's facilities because labor unions are mainly formed on the company union basis. As a result, there have been lots of conflicts between the right on the union activity, and the right on the enterprise employment such as work-direction authority and facilities-administration authority. The question is how we can adjust right when there exist mutually conflicting interests between employees and employers. The right on the union activity has a legal basis of the workers-right of association, collective bargaining, and collective action in order to improve working conditions as well as to enhance socioeconomic status. It is these three right that are the basic constitutional right which empower labors to negotiate working conditions with employer as equals with respecting labors' life and dignity, and which allow labors to make a substantial joint labor-management system. Furthermore, the workers-right of association, collective bargaining, and collective action are the rights that have forces that directly effect on the government and employers. These three rights are closely related to each other, and play a primary role independently rather than one of them is secondary. The employers have 'work-direction authority' which empowers them to command and supervise employees as well as empowers them to make and maintain the office regulations. The legal basis of this empowerment does not from the entities' characteristics for establishing order, but from the labor contracts between employers and employees. In addition, employers have 'facilities-administration authority' based on the property right which enables employers to determine how to use and keep their facilities, and enables them to abate from the employees who infringe management rights. This management right, however, could neither be transcendental nor absolute right because this right is generated from the formation of employees-employer relationship. This management right could not be exercised to the employees as a legal rights, even though management right is based on the comprehensive and functional concept of management. The law to form substantial joint labor-management system, and take effect on the relationship with employers, on the other hand, the right on the enterprise employment is neither transcendental nor absolute rights. Therefore, to reasonably ensure the benefit of union activity by workers and the benefits of enterprise, these benefits on two sides should be comparably measured. It seems that the rights on the union activity and the rights on the enterprise employment conflict each other. thus, this confliction could be solved through the right adjustment.

단체행동권 행사요건의 흠결과 손해배상책임 - 사용자에 대한 손해배상 범위를 중심으로 -

김상철 경희대학교 법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.33 No.-

The right of collective action is guaranteed on the premise that the relationship between employee and employer is unequal, and to resolve the unequal relationship between them. Althought the right of collective action is guaranteed in the Constitution, it is a self-evident fact that the unequal relationship is not naturally diverted into the equal relationship. There is a contradiction and a confrontation between the principles of Civic Law based on equal relationship and the principles of Social Law based on unequal relationship. Therefore, it is necessary to reorganize, by embracing the harmonisation of values, from unequal relationship to equal relationship. If employees does not meet the requirements for exercise of the right of collective action, judicial precedents and academic theories apply directiy without modification the legal Principles of liability in the Civil Law based on equal relationship. This paper raises a question whether their interpretation is a soundly based conclusion. The right of collective action in Korea is guaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, it is necessary to reorganize the liability for economic losses of the employer from unequal relationship to equal relationship. This paper is an attempt to reconstitute normatively the theory of the liability for damage caused by the deficiency of the requirements for exercise of the right of collective action. Finally, this paper hopefully could be a little help for a better legislation in the future, and that more empirical studies are expected in stages, accumulating legal cases and a corresponding discussion of problems in Korea, including case studies of foreign countries. 단체행동권은 불평등관계를 전제로 하여 이를 해소하기 위해 보장되는 것이고, 헌법상 단체행동권을 기본권으로 보장하는 것 그 자체로 인해 불평등관계가 평등관계로 되지는 않는다는 점은 자명한 사실이다. 평등관계를 전제로 한 시민법원리와 불평등관계를 전제로 한 사회법원리는 서로 모순되고 충돌할 수밖에 없으므로, 이를 가치조화적으로 포용하여 평등관계로 재편성하는 작업이 필요한 것이다. 본고는 단체행동권의 행사요건을 충족하지 못하여 위법한 집단행동으로 평가되는 경우에 평등관계를 전제로 하는 민법상의 손해배상책임의 법리를 그대로 적용하는 종래의 학설과 판례의 해석론은 과연 타당한 것인지에 대한 의문에서 시작한 이론재구성 작업이다. 필자는 단체행동권을 기본권으로 규정하고 있는 우리나라의 헌법질서 하에서 단체행동권의 행사요건을 충족하지 못한 ‘위법한 집단행동’으로 인해 사용자에게 발생한 경제적 손실에 대한 손해배상책임에 관하여 불평등관계를 평등관계로 재편성하는 이론재구성을 시도하였다. 본고를 통하여 향후 입법적인 방향을 잡는데 조금이나마 도움이 되기를 바라며, 외국의 사례연구를 포함하여 우리나라에서 나타나는 문제점과 이에 대응하는 논의와 판례 등을 집적하여 나가면서 단계적으로 보다 실증적인 연구작업이 이루어 질 수 있기를 기대해본다.

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.

단체행동의 자유

김린 서울대학교노동법연구회 2023 노동법연구 Vol.- No.54

Regarding the legal nature of the constitutional right to association, collective bargaining, and collective action(collectively the “RIGHTS”) as fundamental rights, ‘social rights’ and ‘mixed rights of freedom and social rights’ have been dominant interpretations. However, with the following facts, it is necessary to newly establish the legal principle on freedom of collective action (the “FREEDOM”) as a basic right of freedom from the perspective of interpretation and legislation. First, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the RIGHTS should be regarded as specific rights that can directly take legal effect even under the provisions of the Constitution. Second, the National Assembly ratified the ILO Fundamental Conventions on Freedom of Association. Third, the level of demand for fundamental rights of the people has been growing. From the perspective of the right holder, the FREEDOM can be exercised by individual workers or loose connections. Even in the method and timing of the exercise, if the focus is on “improving working conditions,” there is no need to demand or exclusivity or obstructiveness against employers’ business, and it is unfair to demand the last resort of collective bargaining. For the same reason, the current adjustment prior to strike system is incompatible with the FREEDOM, a shift to more convenient administrative services is required. The FREEDOM must have the same legal effect as general freedom. In principle, the state cannot interfere with the exercise of the FREEDOM, but rather needs to reorganize the system to facilitate its exercise, such as unfair labor practices. The exercise of the FREEDOM by workers should be limited only by the theory of prohibition of abuse of rights. Employers' claims for damages, which substantially block the exercise of the FREEDOM, also need to be limited. In order to establish such legal principles, a new legal environment is needed to regard the FREEDOM as the fundamental right to freedom. 기본권으로서의 노동3권의 법적 성질에 대해서는 사회권설, 혼합권설이 우세했다. 그러나 최근 전교조 법외노조통보처분취소 판결에서 대법원이 노동3권은 헌법의 규정만으로 직접 법규범으로서 효력을 발휘할 수 있는 구체적 권리라고 보아야 한다고 판결한 점, 결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약이 비준된 점, 국민의 의식 성장 등을 계기로 자유권적 관점에서 단체행동권의 법리를 해석론과 입법론의 관점에서 재검토할 필요가 생겼다. 권리주체의 관점에서 단체행동의 자유는 근로자 개인이나 느슨한 연대체도 행사할 수 있다. 행사방법이나 시기에 있어도 ‘근로조건 향상’이라는 내용에 방점을 두고 본다면 업무저해성이나 일신전속성 등을 요구할 필요가 없고, 단체교섭과 연관시켜 최후수단성을 요구하는 것은 부당하다. 마찬가지 이유에서 조정전치주의 역시 단체행동의 자유와는 정합성이 맞지 않으므로 행정서비스로의 변화가 필요하다. 효력에 있어서도 자유권의 일반적 효력이 그대로 적용되어야 하므로, 단체행동의 자유에 대해 국가는 원칙적으로 그 행사를 방해할 수 없고 오히려 부당노동행위 등 그 행사를 용이하게 할 수 있도록 제도를 정비할 필요가 있다. 근로자의 단체행동의 자유 행사는 일단 적법하므로 권리남용에 의한 제한이 선행되어야 하며, 일단 업무방해죄의 구성요건에 해당된다고 보는 해석은 위헌이다. 같은 관점에서 단체행동권 행사를 실질적으로 봉쇄하는 사용자의 손배청구 역시 제한이 필요하다. 이러한 법리의 정착을 위해 단체행동권을 자유권으로 여기는 새로운 법적 풍토가 필요하다.

교육공무직의 단체행동권에 대한 법적 검토와 개선방안

하윤수(HA Yun-su) 대한교육법학회 2021 敎育 法學 硏究 Vol.33 No.3

본고의 연구목적은 교육공무직의 파업으로부터 학교를 보호하는 한편, 근로자로서의 근로기본권인 단체행동권과의 조화를 위한 관련 법제의 개선방안을 제안하는 것이다. 이를 위해 이 연구에서는 교육공무직에 대한 정의와 관련 법제를 개관하고, 교육공무직에 대한 각종 현황을 살펴보았다. 이어 교육공무직과 교원간 단체행동권에 대한 법제를 비교･분석하고, 교육공무직의 단체행동권 행사에 대한 쟁점과 파업 등 단체행동권 행사시 대체근로제도에 대한 기존의 판례 및 외국의 입법례를 살펴보았다. 헌법재판소는 학생의 학습권 보호는 국가의 존립을 위한 필수적 가치이기 때문에 교원 및 교육행정직의 근로기본권 중 파업 등 단체행동권을 제한할 수 있다고 보았다. 다만 이 같은 제한에 상응하여 교원 및 교육행정직의 신분 및 처우를 공무원으로서 국가가 보장하고 있다는 점에서 교육공무직의 단체행동권을 동일한 선상에서 제한하는 것은 무리가 있을 것이다. 학교를 대상으로 하는 파업의 직접적인 피해가 사용자인 교육감이 아닌 학생･학부모, 교원 등 학교를 이용하는 국민 일반에게 전가된다는 점, 교육받을 권리의 보호를 위해 교원의 파업 등 일체의 단체행동권을 제한할 수 있다고 보는 헌법재판소의 판단을 종합하여 볼 때, 교육공무직의 파업 등 단체행동권 자체를 제한하지 않으면서도 학교의 정상적 운영을 담보하기 위한 방안으로 학교내 사업을 필수공익사업으로 지정, 교육공무직의 파업 시 파업참가자의 50% 범위 내에서 대체근로를 허용할 수 있도록 노동조합법 제71조를 개정하는 방안을 제시하였다. The purpose of this study is to protect schools from strikes by public education officials and to propose measures to improve related legislation to harmonize with the basic right to work as workers and collective action. To this end, this study outlined the definition of educational public officials and related legislation, and examined various statuses of educational public officials. Subsequently, the legislation on the right to collective action between education officials and teachers was compared and analyzed. Existing precedents and foreign legislation on the alternative labor system in the event of a strike by education officials were examined. The Constitutional Court saw that the protection of students right to learn in schools is an essential value for the existence of the state, so that the right to collective action, such as strikes, can be restricted among the basic labor rights of teachers and education administration. However, in response to these restrictions, the state guarantees the status and treatment of teachers and educational administration as public officials. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to limit the right of collective action of public educational officials on the same line as teachers. The direct damage of the strike against the school is passed on to the general public who use the school, such as students, parents, and teachers, not the superintendent of education, who is the user. In addition, the Constitutional Court believes that all collective action rights, such as strikes, can be restricted to protect the right to education. Taken together, a plan to ensure the normal operation of the school is proposed as follows without limiting the right to collective action itself, such as a strike by public educational officials. As a result of this study, it proposes a plan to amend Article 71 of the Labor Union Act so that projects in schools can be designated as essential public interest projects and alternative work can be allowed within 50% of strike participants.

헌법개정과 노동3권 보장의 과제

정영훈 노동법이론실무학회 2018 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.23

Although the Constitutional Amendment process was taken place in 1987 in the midst of the Great Labor Struggle that occurred in the same year, it has yet to be studied whether the achievements of the Great Labor Struggle were reflected into the Constitutional Amendment. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the Article 33 of the Amended Constitution in 1987 was a great step forward compared with the Article 31 of the Amended Constitution in 1980. However, the prohibition of public official and teacher’s right to collective action and prohibition of dual unionism were not repealed until substantial amounts of time had passed since then. Given that, it would be rather hesitant to give significance to the role of the Article 33 of the Amended Constitution in 1987 during the transitional period. In this sense, it can be said that the Constitutional Amendment in 1987 had its limitations in guaranteeing three basic labor rights. Under the current situation where discussions on the Constitutional Amendment have been actively made, introspecting on the limitations of the Constitutional Amendment in 1987 may give good insights into the current discussions and encourage public discussions where people, especially workers, can actively participate to deeply examine the necessity of the Constitutional Amendment of the Article 33 and its desirable directions. This study aims to review the necessity of the Constitutional Amendment of the Article 33 and to express my opinions on the desired directions of the Amendment as an extension of the review. As the general directions of the Amendment may depend on how persuasive the necessity is demonstrated, it is essential to carefully review the reasons for the Amendment. For the sake of convenience of discussion, this study focuses on the necessity of the Amendments that have been recently proposed. Also, this study is extended to the subjects such as subject of fundamental rights, description format and regulation system of three basic labor rights guarantee, expansion of public official’s three basic labor rights and right to collective action of workers employed by important defense industries. This study considers that right to Association, right to collective bargaining, and right to collective action should be prescribed in separate provisions and the guarantee of three basic labor rights and right to collective action of public official and workers employed in important defense industries should be further strengthened except that the subject of fundamental rights should be changed to “everyone.” However, it will be reasonable to explicitly stipulate only the limitations on the right to organization of soldier and police official in guaranteeing three basic labor rights of them while being silent on three basic labor rights of other public officials. 1987년 헌법 개정 과정은 1987년 노동자대투쟁의 과정과 시기적으로 겹치지만, 1987년 노동자대투쟁의 성과가 1987년 개헌에 어느 정도가 반영되었는지는 알 수 없다. 물론 1987년 개정헌법의 제33조는 1980년 개정헌법의 제31조에 비하여 진일보한 것이라는 점은 명확하다. 하지만 공무원 및 교원의 단결 금지나 복수노조 금지가 해제된 것은 그로부터 상당한 시간이 경과된 뒤의 일이다. 이러한 기간 동안 헌법 제33조가 어떠한 역할을 하였는지에 대해서 돌아보면 그다지 큰 의의를 부여하는 것에 주저할 수밖에 없을 것이다. 이것이 바로 1987년 개헌이 노동3권 보장에 있어서 가졌던 한계라고 할 것이다. 개헌 논의가 활발히 이루어지고 있는 현 상황에서 1987년 헌법 개정 당시의 한계를 성찰한다면 국민, 특히 근로자가 헌법 제33조의 개정에 있어서 적극적으로 참여할 수 있도록, 헌법 제33조의 개헌 필요성과 방향성에 대해서 진지하게 검토하고 공론화할 필요가 있을 것이다. 본 논문은 이러한 인식에 따라서 주로 헌법 제33조의 개정 필요성에 대해서 검토하는 것으로 하면서 그 연장에서 개정의 방향성에 관한 저자의 의견을 밝히는 것을 목적으로 한다. 필요성이 설득력 있게 논증될 수 있다면 개정의 대체적인 방향성도 그게 따라서 결정될 것이기 때에, 개정되어야 하는 이유를 보다 면밀하게 검토하는 것이 중요할 것으로 생각된다. 이하에서는 논의의 편의를 위하여 최근의 개정 제안에서 제시된 개정 필요성을 중심으로 검토하는 것으로 하는 것으로 한다. 본 논문에서는 지면 등의 한계를 고려하여 노동3권의 주체, 노동3권 보장의 기술 형식 및 규정 체계, 공무원의 노동3권 및 근로자와 주요방위사업체에 종사하는 근로자의 단체행동권 보장의 확대에 관해 검토하기로 한다. 본 논문은 단결권의 주체를 “모든 사람”으로 변경하는 것을 제외하고는 단결권, 단체교섭권, 단체행동권을 각각 별개의 조항에서 규정하는 것과 함께 공무원 및 주요 방위산업에 종사하는 근로자의 노동3권 및 단체행동권의 보장을 더욱 강화하는 방향으로 개정하여야 한다고 생각한다. 다만, 공무원의 노동3권의 보장에 있어서 군인 및 경찰의 단결권 제한만을 명시적으로 규정하고, 그 외의 공무원의 노동3권에 관해서는 명시적으로 기술하지 않는 것이 타당할 것이다.