준법투쟁의 정당성에 관한 연구

• 영문명: A Study on the justifiability of work-to-rule as an industrial action
• 발행기관: 경희법학연구소
• 저자명: 김소영(Kim, Soh-Yeong)
• 간행물 정보: 『경희법학』제51권 제3호, 357~388쪽, 전체 32쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 민법
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2016.09.30

국문 초록

노동조합의준법투쟁으로인하여업무의‘정상적’ 운영이저해되는경우, 이는쟁의행위로서 파업이나 태업과 같은 효과를 가져 올 수 있다. 준법투쟁이 쟁의행위로 인정되는 경우,준법투쟁은 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 의 쟁의행위 관련 규제를 받게 되며, 그 정당성여부는 일반적 쟁의행위의 정당성 판단에 대한 판례법리에 의해 결정된다. 따라서 준법투쟁에 있어서의 노동법적 쟁점은 ‘준법투쟁의 쟁의행위 해당성 여부’와 ‘준법투쟁의 정당성판단’으로 요약된다. 본 논문은 준법투쟁의 ‘쟁의행위 해당성’ 여부에 대한 학설과 판례의입장을 검토하고, 준법투쟁의 유형에 따른 판례의 정당성 판단의 추이를 분석하고, 결론으 로서 준법투쟁의 정당성 판단구조에 대한 방향성을 제시하고자 하였다. 준법투쟁이 쟁의행위에 해당되느냐에 대하여 학설은 사실정상설과 법률정상설로 나뉘어있는데, 대법원은그동안‘업무의정상한운영이란업무가적법하게운영되는상태가아니라 사실상 정상적인 작업상태를 가리킨다고 보는’ 사실정상설을 취해왔다. 그런데 ‘업무의정상한 운영이란 업무가 적법 내지 법률상 정당하게 운영되는 상태만을 의미한다’고 보는법률정상설을 취하는 하급심 판결들이 최근 내려지고 있다. 사실정상설을 취하는 경우 근로기준법에서 처벌한다고 규정한 사용자의 위법한 지시라도 근로자는 이에 복종하여야 한다는모순에빠질뿐만아니라근로자를보호하려는근로기준법의관계조항의입법의도는퇴색하게 되는 바, 준법투쟁에 대하여 목적적․합헌법적․현실 노사관계 정합적인 해석론의 정립이 요구된다.

영문 초록

A trade union may take an industrial action as means to have a strong position at the bargaining table, and an industrial action which is taken in a legitimate manner shall exempt the union from any civil or criminal liability. Industrial action engaged in by employees can include typical methods such as strikes, picketing, slowdown and work-to-rule. 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 Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA). 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. In particular, there is some controversy whether a work-to-rule is an industrial action, and whether it is justifiable or not. Work-to-rule can be often utilized by the workers of public services as railroads and city railroads, because special care is stipulated on method of resolution and procedures of industrial actions in public services, which, unlike those in ordinary businesses, are likely to have an adverse impact on the national economy and people’s daily living. 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. However the Supreme Court usually look into the objective and the manner of a work-to-rule by strict interpretations owing to the legal forms such as passive statutory immunities. Although the industrial action of public service as railroads is likely to jeopardize people’s everyday life, the industrial action of workers’ should be recognized in a wider level based on the fundamental labor rights of the Constitution. In fact, 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.

목차

l. 논점의 제기

ll. 준법투쟁의 의의와 ‘쟁의행위 해당성’ 여부

lll. 준법투쟁의 유형

lV. 준법투쟁의 정당성 판단

V. 준법투쟁과 업무방해죄

Vl. 결 론

키워드

준법투쟁 노동기본권 단체행동권 쟁의행위 태업 work-to-rule fundamental basic rights of workers right of collective action industrial action slowdown