ILO기본협약 제87호와 제98호의 해석원칙 ― 결사의 자유위원회 사례 분석: 한국, 일본, 독일, 영국 ― (To explore Interpretative principles of the ILO convention nos.87 and 98 in the Committee on Freedom Association procedure — the Republic of Korea, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom cases —)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국노동법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 노동법학 / 78호 / 59 ~ 104페이지
· 저자명 : 김미영

초록

Even though the Korea will ratify the conventions nos.87 and 98 of the ILO, it’s unlikely that it confronts more disputes in the CFA procedure than before. Because already the Korean government has many cases in the procedure. The Korea has the obligation to report about the cases in the follow up state. So far the Korean government does not ratified the nos.87 and 98, but the CFA procedure has a jurisdiction over ratified states as well as unratified ones. Also, now, the number of the claims in the CFA procedure has declined and has generally remained at a low level.
However, some sectors cannot avoid rapid changes in the labor laws. It’s the public sector including the civil servants. The CFA recommend that member states should ensure the public employees’s right to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike same as the private employees. Consequently, it does not accept that a government, as a employer, can reject a collective bargaining and limit some bargaining subjects because of the lack of the budgetary power.
The CFA takes a stance that the budgetary issues, itself, may be the subject of bargaining. That is, if regulations allow an administrative agency to reject a collective bargaining with public employees’ unions, they can violate the nos.87 and 98. Member states should ensure that all public employees including fire-fighters, prison staffs, labor inspectors, teachers, and professors can enjoy the right to bargain collectively and to strike. Even if domestic laws recognize a special status to them, it can’t change that they are included in the scope of the nos.87 and 98.

영어초록

Even though the Korea will ratify the conventions nos.87 and 98 of the ILO, it’s unlikely that it confronts more disputes in the CFA procedure than before. Because already the Korean government has many cases in the procedure. The Korea has the obligation to report about the cases in the follow up state. So far the Korean government does not ratified the nos.87 and 98, but the CFA procedure has a jurisdiction over ratified states as well as unratified ones. Also, now, the number of the claims in the CFA procedure has declined and has generally remained at a low level.
However, some sectors cannot avoid rapid changes in the labor laws. It’s the public sector including the civil servants. The CFA recommend that member states should ensure the public employees’s right to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike same as the private employees. Consequently, it does not accept that a government, as a employer, can reject a collective bargaining and limit some bargaining subjects because of the lack of the budgetary power.
The CFA takes a stance that the budgetary issues, itself, may be the subject of bargaining. That is, if regulations allow an administrative agency to reject a collective bargaining with public employees’ unions, they can violate the nos.87 and 98. Member states should ensure that all public employees including fire-fighters, prison staffs, labor inspectors, teachers, and professors can enjoy the right to bargain collectively and to strike. Even if domestic laws recognize a special status to them, it can’t change that they are included in the scope of the nos.87 and 98.

참고자료

· 없음