노조전임자급여규정과 관련된 법적 문제 - 헌법과 미국노동법을 비교하여 -

Abstract

Our government, labor union and management group have discussed when to enforce Trade union and labor relations adjustment act(hereinafter referred to labor union law) article 24(2) and article 81 subparagraph 4 which is presently enacted but delayed in the time of the enforcement. Trade union and labor relations adjustment act article 24(2) provides that Those who are engaged in duties only for trade unions in accordance with paragraph (1), which stipulates that If stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement or consented by employers, a worker may perform duties only for a trade union, without providing work specified in his/her employment contract, shall not be paid in any way by employers for the duration of their tenure. This article including article 81 subparagraph 4 which stipulates that no employer shall commit an act that dominate or interfere with the formation or operation of a trade union by workers and wage payment for full-time officials of a trade union or financial support for the operation of a trade union has been in the middle of intensive conflict between employer and labor union. This article is not effective until January 1st 2010 by addendum 1. Also the labor union law article 90 stipulates that A person who violates the provisions of Article 81 shall be punished by imprisonment up to two years, or by a fine up to twenty million won. The full time labor officers have received financial support from employer for long time in industry sector based on collective bargaining. Also the custom that full time labor officer receives salary from employer is very foreign case. The legislative branch made the law article 24(2) and article 81 subparagraph 4 so that it may develop labor reality and make maintain independence of labor union from management group. But the legislative system which prohibits full time union officer to receive salary from employer is very rare compared with other advanced country. Labor union group want to abolish article 24(2) and article81 subparagraph4 and continue to keep current practice which allow full time officer to receive salary from management group which is opposition to labor union. This paper did not deal with the labor policy matter surrounding these law but reviewed the constitutionality of this law based on constitutional case holding due process of law, separation of power or the principle of the void -for- vagueness in statute. Also this paper mentioned US National Labor Relations Act to compare our labor law with US labor law. After study I reached a conclusion that the article 24(2) must be discarded because it does not have any legal power and only cause trouble in industry sector and article 90 also must be abolished by the constitutional principle such as due process of law which demands only that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to object sought to be obtained and article 81 subparagraph must be revised as erasing the part " employer give salary full time labor officer".