사용자와 노동조합의 중립협약 = 미연방대법원의 상고기각 사유를 중심으로

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2013년 12월 10일, Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355 et al.의 사건에 관한 미연방대법원의 기각사유는 Taft-Hartley법이 개정된 후 65년이 지난 시점에서 일어난 일대 사건중의 하나이다. 즉, 이 판례는 사용자와 노동조합간의 중립협약이 미국노사관계법 제302조에 위반된다고 11번째 순회재판소가 판시한 사안이다. 더불어, 미연방대법원 역시 이에 대한 판단이 옳다는 의견을 제시한 바, 중립협약이 노사간의 합의에 따라 용인되어 온 선례를 고려해 본다면, 이 판결은 미국의 노사관계에 큰 지각변동을 일으킬 수 있는 여지가 있다. 왜냐하면 중립협약은 노사간의 평화와 안정을 위해, 사용자는 노동조합에게 직원들의 정보, 사업장 접근, 사용자의 중립성을 보장하고, 노동조합은 이 기간에 쟁의행위를 하지 않겠다는 협의사항으로, 통상적으로 노사간에 관행적으로 인정되어 왔기 때문이다.
이에, 법원은 우선 법적안정성을 위하여 노사관계법 제302조의 재화가치의 정의, 범위, 기준 등을 명확히 제시할 필요가 있다. 그런 다음, 중립협약의 내용이 노사관계법 제302조에 위반되는지에 대해 논해야 할 것이다. 즉, 사용자와 노동조합사이의 중립협약은 노사관계법의 범위 하에 노사의 상호이익과 효율성을 파악해야 한다. 결론적으로 미국은 노동유연성을 중시하는 노동시장이라는 점을 고려할 때 노사 간의 중립협약은 노사관계법 범위 안에서 충분히 이뤄질 수 있다고 본다. 다만, 노동조합 설립을 반대하는 근로자의 이익을 고려해봤을 때 또는 노동유연성으로 인한 근로자의 권리가 침해된 경우, 노사관계법을 엄격하게 적용하여 법원이 판단해야 할 책임이 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

On December 10, 2013, the ground for dismissal of the Supreme Court of the United States in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355 et al. is one of the most important cases at the time of 65 years after the passage of the Taft-Hartley. In other words, this case is the one that the 11th Circuit decided that the neutrality agreement between an employer and a union violates the National Labor Management Act Section 302. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States also agreed that the 11th Circuit’s decision is correct so that this case may generate large fluctuations if the precedents are considered as the neutrality agreement has been permissible under the agreement between an employer and a union. The neutrality agreement consists of not only providing a union with employee’s information, facility access, the employer’s promise to be neutral, but also promising an employer to forego striking, which is usually permitted between the parties.
In this regard, first of all, courts clearly need to indicate the definition, scope, criterion of things of value under the National Labor Management Section 302 in order to promote the legal stability. Afterwards, it shall be discussed that the contents of neutrality agreement violate the National Labor Management Act Section 302. That is to say, the neutrality agreement between an employer and a union shall analyze the mutual interests between the parties and efficiency. Consequently, the neutrality agreement between an employer and a union can be sufficiently established within the scope of the National Labor Management Act if America considers that its labor market is flexible. Merely, courts have the responsibility to adopt the National Labor Management Act strictly in the cases of considering the employee’s interest opposing union organizing or undermining his/her interest due to labor flexibility.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 〈국문초록〉
• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. Unite Here Local 355 v. Martin Mulhall et al.
• Ⅲ. 미연방대법원의 기각사유에 대한 의견
• Ⅳ. 중립협약과 노사관계법 제302조와의 관계
• Ⅴ. 시사점과 향후 과제
• Ⅵ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "Workers' Bill of Rights, H.R.4643, 108th Cong. § 3(b)"

2 "Workers' Bill of Rights, H.R.4636, 107th Cong. § 2(a)(1)"

3 "Unite Here Local 355 v. Martin Mulhall et al., 571 U.S"

4 Eaton, Adrienne E, "Union Organizing Under Neutrality and Card Check Agreements" 55 : 42-, 2001

5 Prentice-Hall, "Union Contracts and Collective Bargaining Practice ¶ 53,352" Prentice-Hall 1946

6 Garren, Brent, "The High Road to Section 7 Rights: The Law of Voluntary Recognition Agreements" 54 : 263-, 2003

7 Cohen, C., "The Developing Law of Neutrality Agreements" 54 : 278-, 2003

8 Carter, Mark A., "The Criminal Element of Neutrality Agreements" 25 : 176-, 2007

9 Feinstein, F., "The Challenge of Being General Counsel" 16 : 19-, 2000

10 "Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448"

11 Raghunath, Raja, "Stacking the Deck: Privileging 'Employer Free Choice' Over Industrial Democracy in the Card-Check Debate" 87 : 329-, 2008

12 Cooper, Laura J., "Privatizing Labor Law: Neutrality/Card Check Agreements and the Role of the Arbitrtor" 83 : 1589-, 2008

13 Richard G. McCracken, "Pertitioner's Brief" 2013

14 "Patterson v. Heartland Inus. Partners, LLP, 428 F. supp. 2d 714"

15 Kramer, Andrew M., "Neutrality Agreements: the New Frontier in Labor Relations-Fair Play or Foul?" 23 : 39-, 1981

16 Brudney, James J., "Neutrality Agreements and Card check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Paradigms" 90 : 819-, 2005

17 "NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575"

18 "NLRB v. American Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 395"

19 Eaton, Adrienne E, "NLRB Elections Versus Card Check Campaigns: Results of a Worker Survey" 62 : 157-, 2009

20 "Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355 et al., 667 F.3d 1211"

21 "Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355 et al., 618 F.3d 1279"

22 "Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301"

23 Worster, Robert M., "If It's Hardly Worth Doing, Its Hardly Worth Doing Right: How the NLRA's Goals Are Defeated Through Inadequate Remedies" 38 : 1073-, 2004

24 "Hotel Employees & Restaurant employees Union, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC, 390 F. 3d 206"

25 "Groves v. Ring Screw Works, 498 U.S. 395"

26 Freeman, R., "Employer Behavior in the Face of Union Organizing Drives" 43 : 351-, 1990

27 Moore, James Y., "Elections, Neutrality Agreements, and Card Checks: The Failure of the Political Model of Industrial Democracy" 87 : 147-, 2012

28 "Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286-87"

29 "Adcock v. Freightliner LLC, 550 F. 3d 369"

30 Bales, R., "A New Direction for American Labor Law: Individual Autonomy and the Compulsory Arbitration of Individual Employment Rights" 30 : 1863-, 1994