지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Law of Public Employees’ Labor Union has been carried into effect since January 2006, and three rights of labor for general public employees could be legally secured with enforcement of the law. However, while industrial relations of public employee has the similar nature as industrial relations in private sector, it recognizes only minimum required basic legal rights of labor in consideration with public interest such as the specialty of work, service for public, and legalization of labor condition. In this aspect, it is demanded to predict possible conflicts or situations between industrial relations and conduct legalistic examination for organization activities of public employees’ labor union in advance in order for rational settlement of public employees’ industrial labor union. Therefore, it is significant to look at major issues in this research among many limitations in the law of public employees’ labor union for settlement of cooperative industrial relations culture. The following is a summary of the research.
First, public employee with class five and above may not be a member of labor union by law because they are unusually in management position and they directly participate in major decision making. However, in reality, public employee with class five or above has the position of middle class manager and their position has no responsibility for managing lower class public employees often. Thus, many have said uniform exception of labor union affiliation with the class is realistic. Moreover, some public employees with class six and under are excluded for labor union affiliation in the Enforcement Ordinance if they are in position of direction or supervision or responsible for general works of human resource and wage or if they work in uniform to exercise law enforcement and work for correction, investigation, or other similar works that requires direction and obedience in order for public order and security. This is also questioned because the range of object is too wide and vague, so it could infringe public employees’ right to organize that is granted by the constitution.
Second, the object of collective bargaining for public employee is applied with regulation of labor union law which characteristic is different from common place of business due to the specialty of public employees’ duty. In general, right to implement personnel management, policy, and management matters of state organization is not included in the scope of collective bargaining. Except that some matters that affects (directly or indirectly) significantly to working conditions should not be excluded as uniform, but should decided whether or not to include as the scope of bargaining with individual and specific judgment.
Third, the right of collective action is prohibited in general in public employee industrial relations. Therefore, grievance settlement system is significant process to recover restricted basic labor right through dispute settlement procedures but not with its mere role to adjust dispute. Hence, it is necessary to consider introducing mediation in aspect of preventing dispute for minimum level but not intervention of public power. Coercive mediation would be necessary but relevant party would rely on if collective bargaining is cancelled. It could affect the party not to implement collective bargaining sincerely. Therefore, voluntary mediation system operation will be needed.
Fourth, American exclusive bargaining system and proportionate bargaining agent system are considered for unification of bargaining window. Given the consideration to emphasize proportionate agent system like the Law of Teachers’ Union, the original purpose is fair distribution and reflection of share and power in proportion with the number of members in labor union, but the situation does not allow objective understanding for actual number of members in labor union. This could cause delay in bargaining. Therefore, it is needed to have objective method to understand the number of members is labor union.
For the last, there could be some problems with the full?time labor union officer’s qualification or labor conditions. In case he or she is punished, suspended from office, or had pay cut due to unlawful union activity, he or she would be in condition of suspension from office with not wage. Then the practical use for punishment would be vanished. Therefore, it is interpreted that pay cut could be treated for public employee who get wage during suspension from office, but pay cut may not be treated for public employee who does not get wage during suspension from office until he or she resumes office. Therefore, suspension from office or pay cut should be considered first with the specific effect of the punishment. It would be reasonable to interpret that repeated punishment is not available if the punishment is not effective.
First, public employee with class five and above may not be a member of labor union by law because they are unusually in management position and they directly participate in major decision making. However, in reality, public employee with class five or above has the position of middle class manager and their position has no responsibility for managing lower class public employees often. Thus, many have said uniform exception of labor union affiliation with the class is realistic. Moreover, some public employees with class six and under are excluded for labor union affiliation in the Enforcement Ordinance if they are in position of direction or supervision or responsible for general works of human resource and wage or if they work in uniform to exercise law enforcement and work for correction, investigation, or other similar works that requires direction and obedience in order for public order and security. This is also questioned because the range of object is too wide and vague, so it could infringe public employees’ right to organize that is granted by the constitution.
Second, the object of collective bargaining for public employee is applied with regulation of labor union law which characteristic is different from common place of business due to the specialty of public employees’ duty. In general, right to implement personnel management, policy, and management matters of state organization is not included in the scope of collective bargaining. Except that some matters that affects (directly or indirectly) significantly to working conditions should not be excluded as uniform, but should decided whether or not to include as the scope of bargaining with individual and specific judgment.
Third, the right of collective action is prohibited in general in public employee industrial relations. Therefore, grievance settlement system is significant process to recover restricted basic labor right through dispute settlement procedures but not with its mere role to adjust dispute. Hence, it is necessary to consider introducing mediation in aspect of preventing dispute for minimum level but not intervention of public power. Coercive mediation would be necessary but relevant party would rely on if collective bargaining is cancelled. It could affect the party not to implement collective bargaining sincerely. Therefore, voluntary mediation system operation will be needed.
Fourth, American exclusive bargaining system and proportionate bargaining agent system are considered for unification of bargaining window. Given the consideration to emphasize proportionate agent system like the Law of Teachers’ Union, the original purpose is fair distribution and reflection of share and power in proportion with the number of members in labor union, but the situation does not allow objective understanding for actual number of members in labor union. This could cause delay in bargaining. Therefore, it is needed to have objective method to understand the number of members is labor union.
For the last, there could be some problems with the full?time labor union officer’s qualification or labor conditions. In case he or she is punished, suspended from office, or had pay cut due to unlawful union activity, he or she would be in condition of suspension from office with not wage. Then the practical use for punishment would be vanished. Therefore, it is interpreted that pay cut could be treated for public employee who get wage during suspension from office, but pay cut may not be treated for public employee who does not get wage during suspension from office until he or she resumes office. Therefore, suspension from office or pay cut should be considered first with the specific effect of the punishment. It would be reasonable to interpret that repeated punishment is not available if the punishment is not effective.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 공무원노조의 운용실태
Ⅲ. 공무원노조법의 주요쟁점
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국 연방정부 공무원의 노동기본권 보장과 구성
노동법학
2017 .06
-
공무원의 노동기본권 보장방안
한림법학 FORUM
2003 .06
-
일본 복수노조와의 자율교섭과 노사관계 : 사용자의 성실교섭의무 및 중립유지의무를 중심으로
노동법학
2009 .12
-
한국과 미국의 단체교섭법제 비교 : 교섭단위와 교섭대표제를 중심으로
노동법학
2011 .12
-
일본의 복수노조 병존하의 노사관계·노무관리의 경험과 시사점
외법논집
2009 .01
-
일본의 복수노조에 있어서 부당노동행위
동북아법연구
2013 .01
-
정부의『공무원노조법안』에 대한 검토
노동법학
2004 .12
-
공무원의 노동관계법상 지위에 관한 연구
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
台湾之劳资关系与劳动法制
노동법학
2008 .12
-
교섭창구단일화제도 시행에 따른 법적·실무적 쟁점
노동법학
2011 .09
-
公共部門 勞使關係의 法的 體系 및 勤勞三權
산업관계연구
2001 .06
-
노동위원회의 교섭창구단일화 관련 결정 절차상의 법적쟁점
노동법포럼
2012 .04
-
공무원연금 개혁과 단체협약과정에서 나타난 공무원 노사관계 통제방식의 변화 - 관료제 통제와 노동통제전략을 중심으로 -
한국비교정부학보
2014 .01
-
복수노조 시대의 노동법상 부당노동행위제도의 현황과 과제
노동법논총
2014 .12
-
중미 국가의 노사관계 및 노동법제 연구-과테말라, 엘살바도르, 온두라스를 중심으로
법학논집
2003 .01
-
공무원 노사관계 발전방안 소고(小考) : 2006~2007년 공무원 단체교섭을 중심으로
노동법연구
2008 .12
-
단체교섭 당사자 확정의 법리 - 자율성과 효율성, 특히 단위노동조합 하부조직인 지부·분회와 연합단체의 단체교섭 당사자 적격성을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2003 .12
-
공공부문의 단체교섭 대상에 관한 고찰
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
교섭대표노조 결정 과정에서의 쟁점 - 1. 교섭창구단일화 절차 규정의 강행규범성, 2. 교섭창구단일화를 거치지 않고 단체협약을 체결한 경우 체결 노동조합의 지위-
노동법포럼
2015 .02
-
公務員勞組 立法化에 대한 小考
노동법학
2004 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-336-014847696