인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제31호
- 발행연도
- 2020.11
- 수록면
- 105 - 142 (38page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2020.11.31.105
이용수
초록· 키워드
Article 81, Paragraph 2 of the Trade Union And Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates compulsory membership provisions, such as the union shop agreement, as one of the unfair labor practices. However, union shop agreement entered into by a dominant trade union is considered to be valid as an exception. According to interpretation of the above clause, union shop agreement might apply to the act of a new employee who directly establishes a new trade union or joins another trade union without first joining and withdrawing from the dominant trade union.
In this case the dispute was over the issue of whether the dismissal of a new employee based on the union shop agreement was an unfair dismissal or not, where the employee had joined another trade union without first joining and withdrawing from the dominant trade union.
The trial court decided that the firing was not an unfair dismissal because the union shop agreement justified it. On the contrary, the appellate court decided that it was an unfair dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that it was an unfair dismissal based on a limited interpretation where it was found that the union shop agreement can only be applied to a new employee who has not joined any trade union.
It appears th Supreme Court’s decision is rational based on the reasons belows.
1) It is a global trend to limit the effectiveness of the union shop agreement and it also corresponds to the development of the history of trade unions.
2) It is necessary to protect employee’s right to work and right to choose the traded union by controlling employer’s dismissal.
3) Employer’s positive right to organize is guaranteed by the Constitution and union’s positive right to organize should be treated equally among plural trade unions.
I hope that based on this ruling, the meaning of the right to unite, especially passive right to organize, will be contemplated and debated deeply. It is necessary, in my view, to regulate the union shop agreement as an unfair labor practice altogether, because passive right to organize should be protected equally to the positive right to organize.
In this case the dispute was over the issue of whether the dismissal of a new employee based on the union shop agreement was an unfair dismissal or not, where the employee had joined another trade union without first joining and withdrawing from the dominant trade union.
The trial court decided that the firing was not an unfair dismissal because the union shop agreement justified it. On the contrary, the appellate court decided that it was an unfair dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that it was an unfair dismissal based on a limited interpretation where it was found that the union shop agreement can only be applied to a new employee who has not joined any trade union.
It appears th Supreme Court’s decision is rational based on the reasons belows.
1) It is a global trend to limit the effectiveness of the union shop agreement and it also corresponds to the development of the history of trade unions.
2) It is necessary to protect employee’s right to work and right to choose the traded union by controlling employer’s dismissal.
3) Employer’s positive right to organize is guaranteed by the Constitution and union’s positive right to organize should be treated equally among plural trade unions.
I hope that based on this ruling, the meaning of the right to unite, especially passive right to organize, will be contemplated and debated deeply. It is necessary, in my view, to regulate the union shop agreement as an unfair labor practice altogether, because passive right to organize should be protected equally to the positive right to organize.
#조직강제
#유니온 숍 협정
#부당해고
#부당노동행위
#지배적 노동조합
#적극적 단결권
#소극적 단결권
#노동조합 선택의 자유
#근로의 권리
#근로자
#compulsory membership
#union shop agreement
#unfair dismissal
#unfair labor practice
#dominant trade union
#positive right to organize
#passive right to organize
#right to choose trade union
#right to work
#employee
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
- Ⅱ. 소송의 경과
- Ⅲ. 조직강제와 유니온 숍 협정
- Ⅳ. 유니온 숍 협정의 합헌성 내지 유효성: 적극적 단결권과 소극적 단결권의 우열
- Ⅴ. 유니온 숍 협정의 요건, 효과, 효력범위
- Ⅵ. 개정론(입법론)
- Ⅶ. 결론
- 참고문헌
- Abstract
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2020-360-001551396
