PARTNER
검증된 파트너 제휴사 자료

단결권을 위협하는 직장폐쇄의 정당성 여부 - 직장폐쇄가 정당하게 개시됐더라도 대항적ㆍ방어적 성격을 잃고 근로자에게 심대한 타격을 주며 단결권까지 위태롭게 한다면 정당성을 상실한다.(대상판례: 서울고법 2013. 6. 28. 선고 2012누29310 판결 (부당해고구제재심판정취소)) - (The Legitimacy of Lockout Intimidating Right to Organize (Review of Court Decision))

36 페이지
기타파일
최초등록일 2025.03.16 최종저작일 2013.12
36P 미리보기
단결권을 위협하는 직장폐쇄의 정당성 여부 - 직장폐쇄가 정당하게 개시됐더라도 대항적ㆍ방어적 성격을 잃고 근로자에게 심대한 타격을 주며 단결권까지 위태롭게 한다면 정당성을 상실한다.(대상판례: 서울고법 2013. 6. 28. 선고 2012누29310 판결 (부당해고구제재심판정취소)) -
  • 미리보기

    서지정보

    · 발행기관 : 한국노동법학회
    · 수록지 정보 : 노동법학 / 48호 / 317 ~ 352페이지
    · 저자명 : 이광택

    초록

    The Seoul Appellate Court declared on June 28, 2013 that the lockout, which was designed to severely pressure the employees endangering even the right to organize, illegal, although it had been started legally.
    Although the right of workers to organize, bargain collectively and strike is guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no Constitutional provision recognizing the employers’ right to lockout. However, the Act on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment enumerates the lockout as one of the “industrial action” carried out by the employer.
    According to the legal provision, the term “industrial action” means actions or counter-actions which obstruct the normal operation of a business, such as strikes, slow-down, lockouts, or other activities through which the parties to labor relations intend to achieve their claims(§2. No. 6 TULRAA).
    As a requirement for lockout of workplace, the Law stipulates that any employer may execute a lockout of the workplace only after its trade union commences industrial action(§46 (1) TULRAA). It means that a lockout must be “defensive.” An employer, who intends to organize a lockout, shall report it in advance to the Administrative Authorities and the Labor Relations Commission(§46 (2) TULRAA).
    The leading court decision was made on May 26, 2000. by the Supreme Court, which ruled out that an employer may lockout members of the union which is implementing acts of disruption, “when the employer is subjected to an extraordinary disadvantageous pressures.“ The court stated that although there is no provision in the Constitution, a defensive lockout is allowed in such an exceptional situation to restore the balance of power between the parties in the labor disputes.
    An employer may take this action in order to restore the balance of power, when he is placed in a significantly disadvantageous situation. As the effect of the lockout, the employer can temporarily refuse to accept the labor of employees and be exempt from the obligation to pay wages, according to the “theory of suspension.”The question is whether the employer can evict the employees from the premise, where the employees normally provide labor, in order to maximize the effect of lockout. The Supreme Court decision of August 13, 1991 declared that the employer can deliver the eviction order, although the sit-in strike is legal.
    The Supreme Court decision of March 29, 2007 ruled that the employees are entitled to reject the eviction order, when the lockout is not legally recognized. However, according to the Supreme Court decision of June 10, 2010, the employer is entitled to control the employees’ access to the company, when the lockout is recognized legal.
    The given case reflects the recent trend of industrial conflicts, where the employers make use of the “offensive” lockout in order to drive out members of labor union from the company. The employers’ abuse of lockouts is somewhat encouraged by court rulings that employer is entitled to order the employees legally occupying parts of the workplace to leave the premise as the effect of lockout.
    The theory of lockout was founded on the fundamental principle of equity and fairness in labor relations. It should be noted, however, that the “restauration of the balance of power” for which the lockout is allowed is not meant to enable employers to conduct a good fight in the industrial conflicts. The lockout is designed only to provide employers with relief by permitting to mitigate the extraordinary adverse pressures produced by the workers’ industrial action. An offensive lockout for the purpose of exerting economic pressures upon workers in order to induce an advantageous resolution of the dispute is not allowed.

    영어초록

    The Seoul Appellate Court declared on June 28, 2013 that the lockout, which was designed to severely pressure the employees endangering even the right to organize, illegal, although it had been started legally.
    Although the right of workers to organize, bargain collectively and strike is guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no Constitutional provision recognizing the employers’ right to lockout. However, the Act on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment enumerates the lockout as one of the “industrial action” carried out by the employer.
    According to the legal provision, the term “industrial action” means actions or counter-actions which obstruct the normal operation of a business, such as strikes, slow-down, lockouts, or other activities through which the parties to labor relations intend to achieve their claims(§2. No. 6 TULRAA).
    As a requirement for lockout of workplace, the Law stipulates that any employer may execute a lockout of the workplace only after its trade union commences industrial action(§46 (1) TULRAA). It means that a lockout must be “defensive.” An employer, who intends to organize a lockout, shall report it in advance to the Administrative Authorities and the Labor Relations Commission(§46 (2) TULRAA).
    The leading court decision was made on May 26, 2000. by the Supreme Court, which ruled out that an employer may lockout members of the union which is implementing acts of disruption, “when the employer is subjected to an extraordinary disadvantageous pressures.“ The court stated that although there is no provision in the Constitution, a defensive lockout is allowed in such an exceptional situation to restore the balance of power between the parties in the labor disputes.
    An employer may take this action in order to restore the balance of power, when he is placed in a significantly disadvantageous situation. As the effect of the lockout, the employer can temporarily refuse to accept the labor of employees and be exempt from the obligation to pay wages, according to the “theory of suspension.”The question is whether the employer can evict the employees from the premise, where the employees normally provide labor, in order to maximize the effect of lockout. The Supreme Court decision of August 13, 1991 declared that the employer can deliver the eviction order, although the sit-in strike is legal.
    The Supreme Court decision of March 29, 2007 ruled that the employees are entitled to reject the eviction order, when the lockout is not legally recognized. However, according to the Supreme Court decision of June 10, 2010, the employer is entitled to control the employees’ access to the company, when the lockout is recognized legal.
    The given case reflects the recent trend of industrial conflicts, where the employers make use of the “offensive” lockout in order to drive out members of labor union from the company. The employers’ abuse of lockouts is somewhat encouraged by court rulings that employer is entitled to order the employees legally occupying parts of the workplace to leave the premise as the effect of lockout.
    The theory of lockout was founded on the fundamental principle of equity and fairness in labor relations. It should be noted, however, that the “restauration of the balance of power” for which the lockout is allowed is not meant to enable employers to conduct a good fight in the industrial conflicts. The lockout is designed only to provide employers with relief by permitting to mitigate the extraordinary adverse pressures produced by the workers’ industrial action. An offensive lockout for the purpose of exerting economic pressures upon workers in order to induce an advantageous resolution of the dispute is not allowed.

    참고자료

    · 없음
  • 자주묻는질문의 답변을 확인해 주세요

    해피캠퍼스 FAQ 더보기

    꼭 알아주세요

    • 자료의 정보 및 내용의 진실성에 대하여 해피캠퍼스는 보증하지 않으며, 해당 정보 및 게시물 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다.
      자료 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재∙배포는 금지되어 있습니다.
      저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁 요소 발견 시 고객센터의 저작권침해 신고센터를 이용해 주시기 바랍니다.
    • 해피캠퍼스는 구매자와 판매자 모두가 만족하는 서비스가 되도록 노력하고 있으며, 아래의 4가지 자료환불 조건을 꼭 확인해주시기 바랍니다.
      파일오류 중복자료 저작권 없음 설명과 실제 내용 불일치
      파일의 다운로드가 제대로 되지 않거나 파일형식에 맞는 프로그램으로 정상 작동하지 않는 경우 다른 자료와 70% 이상 내용이 일치하는 경우 (중복임을 확인할 수 있는 근거 필요함) 인터넷의 다른 사이트, 연구기관, 학교, 서적 등의 자료를 도용한 경우 자료의 설명과 실제 자료의 내용이 일치하지 않는 경우
문서 초안을 생성해주는 EasyAI
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스의 방대한 자료 중에서 선별하여 당신만의 초안을 만들어주는 EasyAI 입니다.
저는 아래와 같이 작업을 도와드립니다.
- 주제만 입력하면 목차부터 본문내용까지 자동 생성해 드립니다.
- 장문의 콘텐츠를 쉽고 빠르게 작성해 드립니다.
- 스토어에서 무료 캐시를 계정별로 1회 발급 받을 수 있습니다. 지금 바로 체험해 보세요!
이런 주제들을 입력해 보세요.
- 유아에게 적합한 문학작품의 기준과 특성
- 한국인의 가치관 중에서 정신적 가치관을 이루는 것들을 문화적 문법으로 정리하고, 현대한국사회에서 일어나는 사건과 사고를 비교하여 자신의 의견으로 기술하세요
- 작별인사 독후감
해캠 AI 챗봇과 대화하기
챗봇으로 간편하게 상담해보세요.
2025년 08월 03일 일요일
AI 챗봇
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스 AI 챗봇입니다. 무엇이 궁금하신가요?
4:03 오전