Earticle

초록

영어

In the recent years, there has been an increase of labor disputes on unilateral termination by employers of collective agreement. From the perspective of legal principles, pursuant to Article 32 of Trade Union and National Labor Relations Act which set the duration of collective agreements, if an employer abides by the procedures of Article 32(3), it would be difficult to raise any legal issues against a unilateral termination by employer. Under the current law Article 33(2), if an employer abides by the legal procedures set out in a collective agreement, which provides for automatic extension clause, the employer is entitled to a unilateral termination right in a collective agreement. In other words, when a unilateral termination right in collective agreement is recognized, the exercise of such termination right of collective agreement is construed as employer’s freedom. However, Article 32(3) of the same law stands within the fundamental framework of three basic labor rights ensured by Article 33(1) of the Constitution. Thus, even if the employer abides by the legal procedures of Article 32(3) in terminating any collective agreement, and if such termination would be a violation of three basic labor rights, such right should be limited.
The Trade Union Law recognizes employer’s termination right of collective agreement, and employer’s exercise of such right should be recognized. However, employer’s right to terminate should be acknowledged only within the framework of its unison with laborer’s three basic labor rights.
This paper desires to analyze cases and remedial orders of Labor Relations Commission in Japan, and attempts to gain significant insights in discussing the limits of employer’s termination right of collective agreements. In Japan, such limits a reestablished within the schemes of unfair labor practices. Japanese cases and some remedial orders of Labor Relations Commission provide that in certain cases, employer’s unilateral termination of collective agreement maybe governed by Article 7(especially, subparagraph 3 : “domination of or interference with the formation or operation of a trade union by workers”) of Trade Union Law of Japan. (1) At a time prior to or after termination notice of collective agreement, if the employer does not respond to any negotiations to enter into a new collective agreement, or (2) notwithstanding the employer’s response to negotiations prior to or after termination of collective agreement and provision of new proposals, if the employer merely enters into the negotiation in a cursory manner and does not participate in good-faith to stabilize labor-management relationship, then such fact or evaluation of such act leads to the conclusion that termination of collective agreement was an unfair labor practice.

목차

Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
 Ⅱ. 단체협약의 유효기간과 해지에 관한 법제의 개관
  1. 유효기간의 정함이 있는 경우
  2. 유효기간이 없는 경우
 Ⅲ. 지배개입의 일반론
  1. 재배개입의 의의와 개념
  2. 지배개입의 성립을 둘러싼 논점
 Ⅳ. 단체협약 해지의 부당노동행위 성립에 관한 판결에 대한 검토
  1. 全林野勞動組合九州地方本部사건 구마모토(熊本)지방재판소판결
  2. 布施自動車敎習所事件오사카(大阪)지방재판소 판결
  3. 駿河銀行사건 東京지방재판소 판결
 Ⅴ. 단체협약 해지의 부당노동행위 성립에 관한 노동위원회의 명령에 대한 검토
  1. 노동위원회의 명령의 개관
  2. 명령의 구체적 검토
 Ⅵ. 맺음말
 참고문헌
 

키워드

단체협약 단체협약의 해지 부당노동행위 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 권리남용 성실교섭의무 노동위원회 일본노동법 Collective Agreement Termination of Collective Agreement Unfair Labor Practice Trade Union and National Labor Relations Act Abuse of Right Duty to Bargain in good-faith Labor Relations Commission Japanese Labor Law

저자

• 정영훈 [ Jung, Young-Hoon | 서울대학교 일본연구소 연구교수 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물