Earticle

초록

영어

In 2012, the MBC union staged a long-term strike that aimed to return fairness to the broadcast media. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and relevant laws, a legitimate union strike shall not be held for civil or criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, MBC filed criminal complaints against some unionists for obstruction of business and civil damages. The court acquitted the unionists and ruled that the strike was justified, stating that the fairness of broadcasting can be a legitimate purpose of the strike. In turn, the company sought KRW 19.5 billion in damages from its unionized workers as they claimed that the company suffered huge losses from the strike. Once again, the court rejected the company’s claim because there were no damages. When the company fired some unionists or took disciplinary measures such as suspension, the workers filed a lawsuit, including the confirmation of the nullity of their dismissal. The court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and ruled that the company’s disciplinary action against them was invalid. According to the court, the company neglected to implement fairness in broadcasting, which is imposed on all members of a broadcasting company such as broadcasting managers and producers. “The union members’ strike to secure fairness in broadcasting, therefore, is justified,” the ruling said. In this study, I argued that the company’s actions against the union members were a typical Strategic Lawsuit Against Participation (SLAPP). The first reason is that the company did not file a lawsuit to win the case but to put economic and psychological pressure on the unionists. Second, the company filed criminal charges against the unionists—a strategy that South Korean companies often use because the Supreme Court has often ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court presupposed that union strikes would, in principle, hamper the company’s work and only ruled them innocent if the strike was justified. In 2011, the Supreme Court changed this sentencing standard, stating that labor strikes do not directly lead to obstruction of business. This contributed to the acquittal of the MBC union’s strike. Third, disciplinary action against unionists was also a SLAPP because it imposed psychological contraction on other strikers. It is not desirable for public broadcasters’ unions to go on strike particularly over fairness in broadcasting because it is the managers' and producers’ joint duty.

한국어

2012년 전개된 공영방송 노조의 파업에 대해 방송사업자들은 파업 참 여자들을 업무방해죄로 형사고소해 처벌을 시도했다. KBS와 MBC 파업 노조원에 대한 판결에서 재판부는 무죄를 선고했다. MBC 경영진은 파업 참여 노조원 일부를 해고하고 정직 등 중징계 조치했는데 법원은 그러한 해고조치가 무효라고 확인했다. MBC 경영진은 파업 참여 노조원들을 대 상으로 195여억 원의 손해배상을 청구했다. 연구자는 이러한 일련의 소 송, 그 중에서도 막대한 손해배상 청구는 전형적인 전략적 봉쇄소송의 일 환이라고 간주하고 그러한 연구 접근의 타당성을 논의했다. 이 사건의 해 고무효소송과 손해배상청구 소송을 담당한 각 재판부는 ‘공정방송’은 경 영진, 편성책임자, 제작종사자 모두에게 부여된 공동의 의무이고 이는 근 로조건의 중요한 사항이라고 판시했다. 공정방송 확보를 목표로 한 파업 의 목적은 정당하고 2012년 MBC 노조의 파업은 그 수단과 방법, 시기와 절차 등에서도 정당하다는 판결을 내렸다. 이러한 점에 비추어 볼 때 MBC 경영진이 제기한 손해배상청구 소송은 한국적 상황에서도 다소 특 이한 방송사업자의 전략적 봉쇄소송의 특성을 갖는다고 연구자는 결론을 내렸다. 파업 참여 노조원에 대한 업무방해죄 형사고소와 해고 및 중징계 조치 등도 그러한 전략적 봉쇄소송의 일환이라고 연구자는 판단했다.

목차

국문초록
1. 문제제기
2. 사건의 개요
3. 판결의 주요 내용 및 전략적 봉쇄소송의 쟁점 검토
1) ‘공정방송’ 파업의 정당성 여부에 대한 법원의 판단
2) 전략적 봉쇄소송의 관점에서 본 MBC의 손해배상청구 소송의 특성
4. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT

키워드

전략적 봉쇄소송 공정방송 파업 업무방해죄 해고무효 확인 위력 MBC SLAPP fair broadcasting strike obstruction of business MBC union’s strike

저자

• 이승선 [ Lee, Seung-Sun | 충남대학교 언론정보학과 교수 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물