RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      미국 공공부문 근로자의 근로삼권 보장 법리와 대안적 분쟁해결(ADR) 절차 = Public Employees' Rights (Right to Unionize, Right to Collective Bargaining, Right to Strike and Concerted Activities) and ADR procedures in the United States

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      While the U.S. Constitution does not specify the public employees the right to unionize, public employees' right to unionize is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Right to unionize is a Constitutional right derived from the freedom of association, and employees in both the public and private sectors need not be treated differently.
      In the United States, however, there still exists a fine line between the private and public sector, and public employees continue to experience restrictions in areas of subjects of bargaining, and right to strike and concerted activities. According to statutes and case laws, the right to collective bargaining, for example, may be viewed and affirmed as a Constitutional right, but what is rightfully considered so in the private sector still does not necessarily apply in the public sector. Moreover, not only have numerous states' efforts to protect public employees' concerted activities and their right to strike been unsuccessful, statues and case law both prohibit such activities.
      Upon closer examination, however, 1) the right to collective bargaining should not be fully restricted but embraced and exercised by public employees as done by their counterpart in the private sector, and 2) strike and concerted activities may be restricted to employees in the so-called essential service sectors (e.g., law enforcement officers, fire fighters, policemen) where safety is at high risk.
      Further, most jurisdictions that allow public employees the right to collective bargaining, but prohibit them the right to strike, resolve the impasse of the negotiation process through ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) procedures. Jurisdictions that give public employees the right to strike also require ADR procedures.
      In jurisdictions that public employees have the right to strike, the ADR procedures mean mediation and fact-finding, which are not binding. Mediation and fact-finding are commonly used in the public sector rather than the private sector. Because of disfavor, interest arbitration is used for essential employees after fact-finding process. In the interest arbitration, the med-arb approach is preferred rather than the judicial decision-making approach, because advocates of med-arb regard interest arbitration as the extension of the collective bargaining process and shape the award to be acceptable to both parties.
      번역하기

      While the U.S. Constitution does not specify the public employees the right to unionize, public employees' right to unionize is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Right to unionize is a Constitutional right derived from the ...

      While the U.S. Constitution does not specify the public employees the right to unionize, public employees' right to unionize is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Right to unionize is a Constitutional right derived from the freedom of association, and employees in both the public and private sectors need not be treated differently.
      In the United States, however, there still exists a fine line between the private and public sector, and public employees continue to experience restrictions in areas of subjects of bargaining, and right to strike and concerted activities. According to statutes and case laws, the right to collective bargaining, for example, may be viewed and affirmed as a Constitutional right, but what is rightfully considered so in the private sector still does not necessarily apply in the public sector. Moreover, not only have numerous states' efforts to protect public employees' concerted activities and their right to strike been unsuccessful, statues and case law both prohibit such activities.
      Upon closer examination, however, 1) the right to collective bargaining should not be fully restricted but embraced and exercised by public employees as done by their counterpart in the private sector, and 2) strike and concerted activities may be restricted to employees in the so-called essential service sectors (e.g., law enforcement officers, fire fighters, policemen) where safety is at high risk.
      Further, most jurisdictions that allow public employees the right to collective bargaining, but prohibit them the right to strike, resolve the impasse of the negotiation process through ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) procedures. Jurisdictions that give public employees the right to strike also require ADR procedures.
      In jurisdictions that public employees have the right to strike, the ADR procedures mean mediation and fact-finding, which are not binding. Mediation and fact-finding are commonly used in the public sector rather than the private sector. Because of disfavor, interest arbitration is used for essential employees after fact-finding process. In the interest arbitration, the med-arb approach is preferred rather than the judicial decision-making approach, because advocates of med-arb regard interest arbitration as the extension of the collective bargaining process and shape the award to be acceptable to both parties.

      더보기

      국문 초록 (Abstract)

      미국 공공부문 근로자의 근로삼권 보장 법리를 판례법까지 아울러 살피고, 대안적 분쟁해결절차가 근로삼권 보장 수위에 따라 달라져야 할 근거를 제시하는 점에 이 글의 독자적 의의가 있다. 공공부문 근로자의 단결권은 헌법상 권리라는 것이 미 연방대법원의 입장이다. 공공부문 근로자의 요구사항들은 대부분이 단체교섭의 틀로 해결되어야 하기 때문에 단체교섭권의 헌법상 권리성을 인정하여야 한다. 필수서비스 근로자를 제외한 공공부문 근로자의 파업권도 헌법적 보호 가능성이 높다. 조정, 사실조사, 변형된 중재 등의 대안적 분쟁해결절차는 근로삼권의 보장 수위에 따라 활용 종류가 달라져야 한다.
      번역하기

      미국 공공부문 근로자의 근로삼권 보장 법리를 판례법까지 아울러 살피고, 대안적 분쟁해결절차가 근로삼권 보장 수위에 따라 달라져야 할 근거를 제시하는 점에 이 글의 독자적 의의가 있...

      미국 공공부문 근로자의 근로삼권 보장 법리를 판례법까지 아울러 살피고, 대안적 분쟁해결절차가 근로삼권 보장 수위에 따라 달라져야 할 근거를 제시하는 점에 이 글의 독자적 의의가 있다. 공공부문 근로자의 단결권은 헌법상 권리라는 것이 미 연방대법원의 입장이다. 공공부문 근로자의 요구사항들은 대부분이 단체교섭의 틀로 해결되어야 하기 때문에 단체교섭권의 헌법상 권리성을 인정하여야 한다. 필수서비스 근로자를 제외한 공공부문 근로자의 파업권도 헌법적 보호 가능성이 높다. 조정, 사실조사, 변형된 중재 등의 대안적 분쟁해결절차는 근로삼권의 보장 수위에 따라 활용 종류가 달라져야 한다.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 강현주, "미국의 대안적 노동 및 고용 분쟁 해결시스템(ADR)』" 한국노동연구원 2011

      2 강현주, "미국의 교원노사관계" 한국노동법학회․전국교직원노동조합 2010

      3 전명숙, "미국 공공부문 노동운동과 단체교섭 및 분쟁해결방식에 관한 연구" 한국노동연구원 2003

      4 McCann, "The National Labor Relations Act and the Regulation of Public Employee Collective Bargaining" 13 : 479-, 1976

      5 WELLINGTON, H, "THE UNIONS AND THE CITIES" Brookings Institution 1971

      6 WEITZMAN, J., "THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT" Lexingtion Books 1975

      7 Joseph, E. Slater, "Public Workers" Cornell University Press 2004

      8 Harry, C. Katz, "An Introduction to Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations" McGraw-Hill 2008

      1 강현주, "미국의 대안적 노동 및 고용 분쟁 해결시스템(ADR)』" 한국노동연구원 2011

      2 강현주, "미국의 교원노사관계" 한국노동법학회․전국교직원노동조합 2010

      3 전명숙, "미국 공공부문 노동운동과 단체교섭 및 분쟁해결방식에 관한 연구" 한국노동연구원 2003

      4 McCann, "The National Labor Relations Act and the Regulation of Public Employee Collective Bargaining" 13 : 479-, 1976

      5 WELLINGTON, H, "THE UNIONS AND THE CITIES" Brookings Institution 1971

      6 WEITZMAN, J., "THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT" Lexingtion Books 1975

      7 Joseph, E. Slater, "Public Workers" Cornell University Press 2004

      8 Harry, C. Katz, "An Introduction to Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations" McGraw-Hill 2008

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.92 0.92 1.3
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      1.3 1.23 1.948 0.18
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼