勞組專任者의 地位 및 處遇 (The Position and Treatment of the Full-time Union Officers)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 국민대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 19권 / 203 ~ 249페이지
· 저자명 : 이광택

초록

The legislation on the so-called "Industrial Relations Advancement" (revisions of three laws: Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, The Act on Worker Participation and Promotion of Cooperation, and Labor Standards Act), which has been pressed for as part of the Industrial Relations Reform program, was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly on December 22, 2006 and is scheduled to take effect in July 2007.
The major contents of the legislation include postponing the enforcement of the articles on permission of multiple enterprise-level trade unions and ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists for three years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 by way of rewriting of the addenda of the law. During the grace period, labor, management, and the government are to have intensive discussions at the Tripartite Commission on measures to minimize confusion due to permission of multiple enterprise-level trade unions, and measures for financial independence of unions so that they can assume the payment of wages to full-time unionists.
The Genesis of the regulation of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists goes to the so-called Reform Drive of President Kim Young-Sam's Government in 1996. On December 26, 1996, the Government initiated the amendment of the Labor Relations Law, which triggered the nationwide protest actions of the unionists, intellectuals and the civic movement. As a result, the amendment of the Labor Relations Law in 1996 became practically null and void, and the new legislation was accepted in on March 13, 1997. However, the regulation of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists survived the rewriting of the law with a grace period of five years.
The grace period, which was to end on December 31, 2001, was once prolonged to another five-year period in February 2001 with a Triparte Agreement with the Federation of Korean Trade Unions(FKTU). The second national center, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions(KCTU), was ignored at the round table.
The postponement of the enforcement of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists in December, 2006 is the third measure to delay the enforcement of the rule, so that it made the total grace period 13 years. This time again, the KCTU was not invited to the agreement of the postponement.
As regards the issue of the payment of wages to full-time union officials the ILO Freedom of Association Committee noted in March 1998 that the KCTU considers that the effect of this provision will be harmful for the union movement in Korea which is mostly characterized by small enterprise-level unions with very limited resources.
The Committee observed that the FKTU, for its part, is of the view that this provision should be repealed since this issue is a matter to be dealt with by employers and unions and not to be determined by legislation.
And the Committee noted that while some management representatives appear to be unconcerned about the current practice of paying wages to full-time union officials, others have strong contrary views which are reinforced by apprehension concerning the effects of the introduction of multiple trade unions at the enterprise level.
Finally, the Committee considered that the prohibition of the payment of full-time union officials by employers is a matter which should not be subject to legislative interference. It therefore called upon the Government of Korea to repeal section 24(2) of the TULRAA.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Korea has difficulties to interpret the rules of the full-time union officers with the addenda. In research of the laws and practices in Germany and the United States, it was found out that there are positive rules which allow the payment to the full-time union officers, not the negative rules.
In view of the international and comparative labor law, the further postponement of the enforcement of the controversial regulations will be meaningless. The regulations shall be repealed without any alternative rules, so that the issue may remain as the topic of the social partners.

영어초록

The legislation on the so-called "Industrial Relations Advancement" (revisions of three laws: Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, The Act on Worker Participation and Promotion of Cooperation, and Labor Standards Act), which has been pressed for as part of the Industrial Relations Reform program, was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly on December 22, 2006 and is scheduled to take effect in July 2007.
The major contents of the legislation include postponing the enforcement of the articles on permission of multiple enterprise-level trade unions and ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists for three years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 by way of rewriting of the addenda of the law. During the grace period, labor, management, and the government are to have intensive discussions at the Tripartite Commission on measures to minimize confusion due to permission of multiple enterprise-level trade unions, and measures for financial independence of unions so that they can assume the payment of wages to full-time unionists.
The Genesis of the regulation of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists goes to the so-called Reform Drive of President Kim Young-Sam's Government in 1996. On December 26, 1996, the Government initiated the amendment of the Labor Relations Law, which triggered the nationwide protest actions of the unionists, intellectuals and the civic movement. As a result, the amendment of the Labor Relations Law in 1996 became practically null and void, and the new legislation was accepted in on March 13, 1997. However, the regulation of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists survived the rewriting of the law with a grace period of five years.
The grace period, which was to end on December 31, 2001, was once prolonged to another five-year period in February 2001 with a Triparte Agreement with the Federation of Korean Trade Unions(FKTU). The second national center, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions(KCTU), was ignored at the round table.
The postponement of the enforcement of the ban on employers' payment of wages to full-time unionists in December, 2006 is the third measure to delay the enforcement of the rule, so that it made the total grace period 13 years. This time again, the KCTU was not invited to the agreement of the postponement.
As regards the issue of the payment of wages to full-time union officials the ILO Freedom of Association Committee noted in March 1998 that the KCTU considers that the effect of this provision will be harmful for the union movement in Korea which is mostly characterized by small enterprise-level unions with very limited resources.
The Committee observed that the FKTU, for its part, is of the view that this provision should be repealed since this issue is a matter to be dealt with by employers and unions and not to be determined by legislation.
And the Committee noted that while some management representatives appear to be unconcerned about the current practice of paying wages to full-time union officials, others have strong contrary views which are reinforced by apprehension concerning the effects of the introduction of multiple trade unions at the enterprise level.
Finally, the Committee considered that the prohibition of the payment of full-time union officials by employers is a matter which should not be subject to legislative interference. It therefore called upon the Government of Korea to repeal section 24(2) of the TULRAA.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Korea has difficulties to interpret the rules of the full-time union officers with the addenda. In research of the laws and practices in Germany and the United States, it was found out that there are positive rules which allow the payment to the full-time union officers, not the negative rules.
In view of the international and comparative labor law, the further postponement of the enforcement of the controversial regulations will be meaningless. The regulations shall be repealed without any alternative rules, so that the issue may remain as the topic of the social partners.

참고자료

· 없음