인도 노동조합법 ― 노동조합 설립 및 승인과 관련된 문제점을 중심으로 ―

백좌흠 한국비교노동법학회 2009 노동법논총 Vol.17 No.-

The Trade Unions Act, 1926 has some shortcomings in the provisions of formation and recognition of trade unions. They are (a) no provisions for statutory union recognition; (b) lack of the method for ascertaining union membership; (c) to allow the trade union to enroll outsiders as members; (d) no prescription of the time limit within which the Registrar of Trade Unions is to grant or deny registration, etc. The Government of India has, however, not exerted itself to correct these shortcomings for more than 80 years and has perpetuated a weak and divided labour movement. And moreover, as long as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gives to Labour Ministers or Chief Ministers the plenary power to settle industrial disputes, workers will continue to be dependent on outside politicians who have contacts at these Ministers. All this has seriously vitiated not only the trade unions but the industrial scene in India as a whole. Strikes and lock-outs are rampant, although they are almost always illegal. Occasionally there is violence and bloodshed. The Government of India, as the owner of various public sector industries as well as major service industries, is to accept the trade unionism and immediately ratify the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, 1948 and the ILO Convention on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining, 1949. For the first and foremost step to implement all the labour welfare laws as laid down in the ILO Conventions, it has to introduce at once the following changes in the Trade Unions Act: (a) de-linking trade unions from the clutches of politicians by not allowing outsiders to be members of the executive or office bearer of any registered trade union; (b) not to register workers trade unions having less than 15% of the total number of workers of the industry as its members; (c) to make provisions for compulsory recognition of trade unions by the employers; (d) to make provisions for time bound registration of trade unions; (e) to have a consolidated law which would deal with not only trade unions but also unfair labour practices and machinery of settlement of industrial disputes.

교섭창구 단일화 제도에 대한 헌법재판소 결정문 읽기 ― 헌재 2012. 4. 24. 2011헌마338 ―

강선희 한국노동법학회 2023 노동법학 Vol.- No.85

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.

노조전임자제도 국제비교 및 개선방안

문무기 경북대학교 법학연구원 2008 법학논고 Vol.0 No.29

With the revision of Labor-related Laws at the end of 1996, all the allowance to full-time Trade Union Officials had been prohibited. Namely, employers were prohibited from remunerating those engaged in duties only for trade unions as such as Trade Union and the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act was regarded as unfair labor practices. But for businesses with such practices, a grace period has been provided until the end of 2009(Paragraph Ⅱ of Article 24, ④ of Article 81, Article 6 of the Addenda). From the same time, multiple trade unions of unit businesses will be permitted. For the subjugation the Irony which the regulations had become a mere scrap of paper, a new consultation would be required between the Tripartite, the Labor, the Management and the Government. And with the new revision of Labor-related Laws, the protection and facilities should be afforded to every type of workers' representatives including full-time Trade Union Officials and the Time-off. As the conventions and recommendations of ILO and the precedents of Global Standards had given presentations of this idea, workers' representatives should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, based on their status or activities as a workers' representative or on union membership or participation in union activities. But every protection and facilities for workers' representatives should be gone side by side with the diminution of full-time Trade Union Officials and the self-efforts of Trade Unions. The self-efforts of Trade Unions would be included with the reshuffle and consolidation of organization, the enhancement of soundness without financial stringency, the active participation and pain-division of trade union members and the improvement of efficiency in trade union management. 현행 노조법은 사용자가 노조전임자에게 임금을 지급하는 것을 금지하는 동시에, 이러한 사용자의 급여지급행위를 부당노동행위인 지배 · 개입으로 규율하고 있다. 그러나 실정법의 입법취지와 그 해석 및 외국 입법례에서의 시사점을 고려할 때 사용자에 의한 필요 · 최소한의 노조전임자 급여지원이 가능할 수 있는 “순기능적 측면”이 있다. 본 논문에서 살펴본 5개국의 노조전임자 제도에서는 산별 또는 기업별노조 등 어떠한 조직형태를 취하더라도 기업(사업장)단위 노조활동에 대한 근로자대표의 존재 · 기능을 발견할 수 있었고, 사용자가 이를 허용함은 물론 이에 대해 상당한 지원이 가능하다는 시사점을 얻을 수 있었다. 이는 ILO 협약 · 권고의 기본정신과 대체로 일치하고 있는데, 그 명칭과 관계없이 근로자대표(Workers' Representative)로서의 기능을 수행하고 있다면, 사용자는 이를 용인하고 이에 대해 일정한 수준의 편의를 제공하도록 권고하고 있다. 유급 노조 전임제도는 우리 노사 당사자들의 사회적 합의를 근거로 이루어진 1996년 말 노동관계법 개정 때부터 「잘못된 노사관행의 전형」으로 낙인찍혔음에도 불구하고, 현재까지 무려 12년 동안 지속되고 있다. 실정 법조항은 있으되, 그 적용 · 효력은 존재하지 않는 웃지 못 할 아이러니가 노조전임자에 관한 우리 노사관계의 현실이다. 그러나 노조전임자 문제는 처음부터 법규범이 관여할 사항이 아니었다. 국제노동규범(Global Labor Standards)과 단결권의 본질적 특성 및 그 구현체인 노동조합의 본성에서 볼 때 이를 실정법으로 규제 · 금지하는 것 자체가 잘못된 선택이었다. 하지만 현행법을 합리적으로 바로잡기 위해서는 노동조합 스스로의 진솔한 자구노력이 병행되어야 한다. 즉, 지금까지의 안일한 태도를 벗어난 노조 스스로의 적극적 자구책을 전제로 할 때, 전임자제도의 안착을 위한 새로운 합의점 도출이 가능해 질 수 있다. 이러한 문제의식에 기초하여 본 논문에서는 그 구체적 방안으로 노동조합의 조직적 측면, 재정적 측면 그리고 노조운영상의 측면이라는 세 가지 관점에서 가능할 수 있는 노동조합의 자구노력들을 검토 · 제시해 보았다.

노조활동을 곤란하게 할 목적으로 한 행위의 부당노동행위해당성 ― 대판 2011. 7. 28. 2009두9574를 중심으로 ―

이상덕 한국비교노동법학회 2012 노동법논총 Vol.26 No.-

Korean Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Article 81(TULRAA) prescribes that an employer shall not commit an act falling into the following categories. That is, an act dominating, or interfering with workers in the organisation or operation of a trade union, or an act assisting a trade union with the expenses for operation, provided that the employer allows workers to negotiate or bargain with him during working hours, that he donates welfare funds or funds for the prevention of or relief from economic troubles and other disasters, and that he provides a minimum office space. Trade unions must be organised and operated independently of the influence of employers so that they may represent the interests of workers in the true sense of the word. If they are controlled or dominated by employers or their organisation they are no less than company unions. TULRAA guarantees the independence of trade unions from the influence and interference of employers in two ways. Firstly, it deprives a union of legal protection which does not satisfy the requirements which are provided in Article 2 to keep a trade union independent from employers. Secondly, it prohibits acts of an employer which infringes the independence of a trade union. The unfair labor practice called 'domination and interference' is the second legal system that guarantees the independence of a trade union. Domination and interference would include persuading or forcing an employee to join a company union; preventing employees from attending an inaugural meeting; dismissing important promoters of the organisation; or criticizing the organisation or the operation of a trade union which stands against an employer. Forcing an employee who is a member of a trade union to withdraw from it, or ordering an employee to work on a rest day when a general meeting of a trade union is to be held on that day also constitutes control or interference with a trade union. In the above cases, if the employer dismisses the employee on the ground that s/he has joined or has not withdrawn from the trade union, this constitutes both domination and interference with a trade union and discrimination against the employee. As mentioned above, it seems that activities done by an employer with a view to making trade union activities difficult shall be regarded as unfair labor practices. In addition to this, unfair labor practices should be recognized in case the attempts of an employer to break trade unions are found and recognized.

노동조합 정의규정과 설립심사제도

강선희(Kang, Sun-Hee) 한국노동법학회 2014 노동법학 Vol.0 No.51

The Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (‘KTU’) was notified by the administrative authorities in October 2013 that it could not be regarded as a trade union under the law, which is becoming legal issues about a report and a review system of the registration of trade unions. There are two types in a review system of the registration of trade unions by the administrative authorities under Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. One is the prior review system in which a review is carried out in the establishing stage of the trade union. By the system, a certificate of report of registration is issued or is turned down. The other is the ex post facto review system. After an union is issued with a certificate of report of registration, a review is carried out and the administrative authorities can require for correction in the system. The union that fails to perform the requirements would be notified by the administrative authorities that it cannot be regarded as a trade union under the law. The legal basis of this is the article 9 (2) of Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. It states that (2) Where, after a trade union has been delivered a certificate of report of registration, there arise such grounds for returning the written report of registration as falling under Article 12 (3) 1 of the Act, the administrative agencies shall demand correction within the specified period of 30 days, and if the correction is not performed within the period, they shall notify the trade union in question that it shall not be regarded as a trade union provided for under this Act. With an union registration report, when the written report of registration is returned or the trade union in question is notified that it shall not be regarded as a trade union by the prior review system or the ex post facto review system, substantive issues are in regard to workers and in particular, a dismissed person in definition of trade unions that the article 2 of Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates. The prior and ex post facto review system in an union registration report and definition of trade unions are inseparably related from each other. They should, therefore, be judged and reviewed in the context of mutual relation.

교섭창구단일화절차를 둘러싼 노동법상 쟁점

이승욱 사법발전재단 2011 사법 Vol.1 No.15

Newly adopted plural unionism in 2010 in Korea appears to be fairly well organized, however, reveals many legal issues which need to be clarified. The new system purports a single bargaining table system to simplify the bargaining process demanded by multiple trade unions and to coordinate those demands. According to the law, it consists of three steps. First, you need to endeavor to make an arrangement for the single bargaining table based on mutual consent of concerned trade unions within 14 days after the employer make public all trade unions which demand bargaining. If the concerned trade unions cannot make an agreement for single bargaining table by themselves and there is a trade union which consists of absolute majority members of all concerned trade union, that trade union can represent all other trade unions. If not, all concerned trade union need to organize a joint bargaining agent. As it has been long prohibited to establish multiple trade unions in an enterprise over 50 years, the monopoly of trade union representation prevails in Korea. Therefore, this new system may give rise to many serious legal issues in the context of long-established tradition of bargaining monopoly in Korea. Some of these problems may include the concept of establishment and undertaking, the legal status of the chapter in an undertaking of an industrial trade union, the status and power of majority bargaining agent after it loses its majority status. In this paper I try to clarify these issues, however, it seems that some of them cannot be totally solved by statutory interpretation alone. For example, as so many substantial contents of the system are delegated to the decree instead of law itself, it may raise doubt that there is a doubt the system violates the rule of law. Therefore, I believe some of these issues need another legislative amendment. 2010년 개정된 「노동조합 및 노동관계조정법」(이하 ‘노조법’)은 1963년 이후 법에 의해 금지되어 온 사업 또는 사업장 단위의 복수 노동조합의 설립을 제한없이 허용함으로써 단결권에 대한 제한을 철폐하고 있다. 이로 인해 초래될 단체교섭상의 혼란을 방지하기 위하여 노조법은 3단계의 구조를 가지는 교섭창구단일화제도를 마련하고 있다. 이에 따르면 사업 또는 사업장에서 근로자가 2개 이상의 노동조합을 설립하거나 가입한 경우에는 다음과 같은 방법으로 교섭창구를 단일화하여야 한다. 첫째, 노동조합들간의 자율적인 합의에 의해 교섭대표노동조합을 선정한다. 둘째, 그러한 합의가 성립하지 않을 경우 전체 조합원의 과반수로 조직된 노동조합이 있는 경우에는 그 노동조합이 교섭대표노동조합이 된다. 셋째, 그러한 노동조합이 없는 경우에는 관련 노동조합이 공동으로 교섭단을 구성하며, 공동교섭단 구성에 관련 노동조합의 합의가 이루어지지 않을 경우에는 노동위원회가 조합원수를 기준으로 교섭위원을 배분한다. 교섭창구단일화제도는 여러 가지 법적 쟁점을 포함하고 있는데, 본고에서는 그 절차와 관련한 쟁점을 중심으로 살펴보고 있다. 그 중 중요한 것으로 다음과 같은 것이 있다. 첫째, 교섭창구단일화절차의 출발점이 되는 사업 또는 사업장의 개념을 기존 판례를 고려하여 제시하고 있다. 둘째, 초기업별 단위노동조합의 사업(장)별 지부나 분회가 교섭창구단일화의 대상이 되는지 여부, 설립신고증을 교부받지 않은 노동단체가 교섭창구단일화의 대상이 되는지 여부를 검토하고 있다. 초기업별 단위노동조합의 사업(장)별 지부나 분회는 원칙적으로 노동조합의 내부조직에 불과하여 독자적으로 교섭창구단일화절차에 참여할 수 없고 본조가 그 이름으로 절차에 참가하여야 하지만, 예외적으로 노동조합에 준하는 실체를 가지고 있는 경우에는 지부나 분회의 이름으로 참가할 수 있다. 설립신고증을 받지 않은 노동단체라고 하여도 정당한 단체교섭권을 가지면 교섭창구단일화절차에 참가할 수 있다고 해석된다. 셋째, 현행 제도는 사용자의 동의가 있는 경우에는 개별 교섭을 할 수 있도록 하고 있는데, 이 경우 개별 교섭에 대한 동의는 자율적 교섭창구단일화기간 동안에 관련된 모든 노동조합과 합의하여야 한다고 해석하는 것이 법의 취지에 부합한다. 넷째, 과반수 지위를 상실한 교섭대표노동조합의 지위에 관하여 해석상 다툼이 있을 수 있는데, 기존 단체협약의 유효기간 만료 3개월이 되는 날까지는 교섭대표노조는 존재하지 않고 개별 노조가 자신에게 적용되는 협약부분에 대해 협약당사자로서의 권리와 의무를 부담하도록 하고, 그 날 이후에 새로이 교섭창구단일화절차를 진행하는 것으로 해석하는 것이 타당하다.

1960년대 한국노총의 분열·갈등과 민주노조 운동을 향한 변화상

임송자 한국근현대사학회 2011 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.57 No.-

The League of Korean Trade Unions(Hanguk Noryeon) led by Kim Mal-ryoung was not only group that intended to organize another trade union, with rejecting the legitimacy of new Federation of Korean Trade Unions(Hanguk Nochong) in its early period. Former executives who had been in old FKTU(Daehan Nochong) organized the Association of Labor Fellows(No U Hoe) to make the trade union which defied new FKTU. Activities in League of Korean Trade Unions became weakened increasingly due to the article which prohibited on establishing plural trade unions in a company and an industry from revised Labor Relations Act in April, 1963. Association of Labor Fellows which appeared in the second half year of 1963 expected itself to be authorized as a trade union by revised Labor Relations Act. However, Association of Labor Fellows receded gradually into the background as a revised bill for the Labor Relations Act submitted by Samminhoe was abrogated, not being presented in the National Assembly plenary session. Meanwhile, Lee Gyu-cheol’s leadership confronted internal resistance. For examples, Kim Jeong-won tried to organize Democratic labor party. Ji Yeon-il who was the chairperson in National Metal Workers Union declared to withdraw from FKTU. This chain of events revealed that the organization was not stable in its beginning period. However, instability of the organization could be overcome due to government power. The government power authorized FKTU to be solely legal status amongst unions. FKTU more and more accommodated to the political regime in the relations with the government. There occurred much splits and conflicts in FKTU during its middle and later period. FKTU became government-controlled organization because ‘invisible hand’ of ruling party worked on the hidden side of FKTU’s fractional quarrels as it did in Syngman Rhee’s regime. However, it is worthy of note that there came to stand out some groups, which adhered to their independence from the political power and the capitalists in inside cracks, tried to lead the trade unions democratically. We can see a few examples that there increased the groups that were against toeing government line; Kim Mal-ryoung was elected as a chairperson of Associated unions in October, 1966. Also he drummed up quite a bit when he ran for the chairperson of FKTU in October, 1971. Also some trade unions which tried to manage the organization began to appear in the subordinate unit of FKTU, there could not be a quite day on account of fractional strives in the central organization or industrial unions. The branch of Korea Shipbuilding and Engineering Cooperation was good example. Meanwhile, supporting labor movement from church organizations in later 1960s showed another possibility for trade union movement.

현행 노동법 체계하에서의 산별노조 법리

윤광희(Kwang Hee Yoon) 한국고용노사관계학회 2003 産業關係硏究 Vol.13 No.1

노동조합및노동관계조정법은 1997년 3월 13일에 제정되었으며, 동 법 제5조에 따라 노동조합을 자유롭게 결성할 수 있다. 2인 이상의 근로자가 기업별, 사업장별, 직업별, 산업별 노조를 결성하든 자유이다. 우리나라의 노조는 여러 가지 형태로 존재하며 사업장 노조, 기업별 노조, 지역 노조, 산업별 노조 등으로 구분할 수 있다. 복수노조는 현행법하에서는 인정된다. 산업별, 지역별 단위노조에서는 복수노조가 허용된다. 그러나 2006년 12월 31일까지 사업장 또는 기업단위의 조직 대상을 중복으로 하는 복수노조는 부칙 제5조에 따라 허용되지 않는다. 근로자참여및협력증진에관한법률은 노사협의회의 노측 위원을 과반수 노조가 있는 경우에는 과반수 노조에서 구성하도록 하고 있는데, 이는 법적으로 문제가 있다. 현행 노동법상 노사협의회는 노동조합과 다른 것이다. 특히 산별노조제도하에서의 노사협의회는 노동조합과 명확히 구별되어야 한다. 산별노조의 지부는 독자적으로 활동하는 한 독자적으로 단체교섭과 쟁의행위의 당사자가 될 수 있다. 그러나 산별노조의 지부가 단순한 산별노조의 하부 조직에 머무는 한 독자적으로 단체교섭과 쟁의행위를 할 수 없다. 현행 노조법은 단지 노동조합을 조직하기만 하면 단체교섭과 단체행동을 허용하고 있다. 단결권은 단체교섭권과 단체행동권의 전제조건이 되고 있다. 이것은 중요한 법적인 문제를 야기한다. 단결권은 모든 근로자에게 인정될 필요가 있기 때문에 제한없이 허용되어야 하고 단체교섭권과 단체행동권은 제한할 필요가 있는 경우에 제한할 수 있다. 현행 노조법의 노동3권 보장시스템은 새롭게 개정되어야 한다. 그리고 복수노조는 현행법하에서 산업별 노조와 기업별 노조에 관계없이 당연히 인정되어야 한다. Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(hereinafter referred to TULRAA) mainly deals with collective labor relations was legislated on March 13, 1997. Article 5 of this Act guarantees free establishment of trade unions. More than two workers can set up a trade union of any form such as type of business or a type of occupation at an individual company. In korea, there are a variety of trade unions. They can be classified according to the type of business, enterprise, religion and industry. Multiple trade unions are allowed in principle under the new. At the industrial and national levels, the new law allows immediate establishment of multiple trade unions, which undoubtedly will result in an increase in the number of unions at least for the time being. However a new trade union which has the same organizational jurisdiction as exiting trade unions in a business or a workplace shall not be formed by December 31st, 2006, in accordance with the supplementary provisions of Article 5. The Act concerning the Promotion of Worker Participation and Cooperation has the worker member of the Labor Management Council organize the trade union member. It gives rise to several problems. The Labor Management Council differs from trade union. The Act concerning the Promotion of Worker Participation and Cooperation has to be revised in the organization of worker member of the Labor Management Council. If a Branch of Industrial Union takes an active part independently, the Branch will be allowed to do collective bargaining and striking. While a Branch of Industrial Union is an only part of the Union, the Branch is not permitted to do collective bargaining and striking. If a Trade Union only be organized, TULRAA guarantees rights to bargain collectively and to strike, in it. The rights to collective bargaining and striking set forth beforehand the right to Organize. It causes several important problems in law. The right to organize should be permitted unlimitedly because of necessity of all labors. And the rights to collective bargaining and striking can be restricted when it is necessary to limit. Therefore TULRAA has to be revised. And Multiple trade unions should be allowed undoubtedly under TULRAA, in spite of industrial or company unions.

A study of regulations governing the plural trade unions system by business type or business location in Korea -With focus on limitations-

김기우 ( Ki Woo Kim ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2012 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.3

한국에서는 1996·1997년 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법이 대대적으로 개정된 이래, 부칙을 통해 사업(장) 단위 복수노조의 인정이 계속 유예되어 왔다. 이후 2011년 7월 1일에 이르러서 사업(장) 단위 복수노조가 시행되었다. 이에 한국 의 노동계는 시행 직전까지도 복수노조 관련 규정내용의 전면 재개정 내지 핵심 되는 내용들의 재개정이 필요함을 정부 및 경영계에 지속적으로 제시하였었다. 현행 노조법에 따라 2011년 사업(장) 단위 복수노조가 전면적으로 시행되기 전에도 예외적으로 사업(장) 단위 복수노조가 인정되어 왔다. 종래 합병을 중심으로 한 기업변동, 동일 사업 내 직종·사업장·고용형태의 상이로 인한 조직대 상의 차이, 그리고 사업 또는 사업장 단위에 기업별 노동조합과 노동조합의 산별조직화에 따른 지부나 분회의 설립 등으로 조직형태가 다른 경우에는 하나의 사업 또는 사업장에 두 개 이상의 노동조합이 존재하여 왔던 것이다. 이러한 사 실로부터 도출될 수 있는 사항들과 현재 시행되고 있는 사업 또는 사업장 단위 복수노조의 특징들을 비교하였다. 이러한 비교 속에서, 현행 한국 노조법의 한 계를 파악하고자 하였다. 특히 현행 노조법에서 교섭창구단일화의 문제와 소수 노조의 교섭배제 문제, 쟁의권 제한과 관련한 규정내용들을 중심으로 검토하고 자 하였다. 이때 사업 또는 사업장 단위 신설노조들이 대체로 상급단체에 가입 하지 않는 현상, 연합단체 또는 총연합단체의 법률서비스 제공의 필요성을 함께 고려할 필요가 있을 것이다. This study attempts to present the differences between bargaining situations of formerly permitted multiple trade unions, and those existing after the enforcement of the plural trade unions system after 1 July 2011, as mandated by the present day Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. An analysis of previous research concerning multiple trade unions throws light upon possible implications for this Act, such as simplifying procedures concerning bargaining windows, bargaining restrictions and restrictions on industrial actions imposed on minority unions. This study therefore examines whether in the course of the determination of a representative bargaining trade union, the bargaining rights of minority unions as the subject of bargaining might be restricted, and further, whether restrictions on minority unions as the subject to participate in industrial actions constitutes discrimination. The study concludes that there is a need to examine the introduction of a provision for various legal services for industry-associated organizations, nationwide industrial unit trade unions, and confederations of industry-associated organizations. And the fact of establishing new trade unions by business type or business location without having to join an industry-associated organization should be considered as well.

러시아의 사회적 동반자관계에 관한 연구: 노동조합의 역할을 중심으로

조원호 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2019 러시아연구 Vol.29 No.1

러시아가 시장경제체제를 도입하면서 구소련시대와 비교하여 볼 때 가장 현저히 상이한 부분은 무엇보다 노사관계에서 찾아볼 수 있을 것이다. 더욱이 러시아는 시장경제로의 이행 초기에 극심한 경제적 혼란을 겪으면서 노동자들의 파업 및 정부와의 대립이 매우 심각한 사회문제로 대두되었다. 이러한 극심한 노동문제를 제도적으로 해결하기 위하여 러시아 정부는 정부, 기업, 노동자 대표 등이 참여하는 사회적 협의기구로 사회적 동반자관계를 설정하게 되었다. 사회적 동반자관계의 구체적 실행방법으로 노사정위원회가 운영되는 것이다. 본 논문에서는 사회적 동반자관계의 실행기구인 노사정위원회 내에서 노동조합의 역할의 한계를 보여주기 위하여, 먼저 노사정위원회의 규정에 근거하여, 노사정위원회에서의 노동조합 역할의 한계를 제도적으로 분석할 것이다. 그리고 노사정위원회에서 정부와 사용자들에게 노동자들의 이익을 압박하는 가장 전형적인 수단이자 러시아 헌법도 보장하고 있는 파업에 있어 노동조합의 역할, 그리고 마지막으로 러시아 노동조합, 특히 러시아독립노조연맹과 러시아 정부와의 유착 관계를 분석하고자 한다. In this paper, the institutional development of ‘social partnership’ and the structure of tripartite commission in Russia are analyzed. First of all, in the tripartite commission Russian government played a dominant role in determining the policy agenda. That means it is very hard for the trade unions to share their ideas with other social partners. According to the current Russian labor law, trade union’s initiative to the strike which was permitted before, is now legally prohibited. In other words, Russian state deprived trade unions of their right to strike. Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) which is the largest trade union in Russia and also has occupied over 90% of trade unions participating in the tripartite commission has had a very close relationship with the Russian government. In conclusion, the role of trade unions in the ‘social partnership’ is still limited mainly because of the state dominance over trade unions in tripartite commission, deprival of trade unions’ right to strike, the close relationship of FNPR with Russian government, and finally the dominance of the official trade unions in tripartite commission.