노동조합법 제2조, 3조 개정에 따른 해석론의 정립을 위한 시론 = A Study on Establishing an Interpretive Framework Following the Amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Trade Union Act

국문 초록 (Abstract)

개정 노동조합법은 노동조합의 교섭 상대방을 실질적 사용자까지 확대함으로써, 원･하청 구조에서의 책임 회피를 방지하고 실질적인 교섭권을 보장하려는 입법적 의지를 갖고 개정되었다. 그러나 그 내용이 지나치게 추상적이며, 단체교섭의 상대방 결정, 교섭요구사실 공고, 부당노동행위 판단 등 다양한 절차적･실체적 쟁점에서 혼란을 초래할 수 있다. 또한, 사용자 개념의 확대는 노동조합법 각칙 규정들과의 정합성 문제를 야기하며, 법적 안정성과 예측 가능성을 저해할 우려가 있다. 이와 같은 문제의 발생을 방지하기 위하여, 개정 노동조합법 조항에 대한 신중한 문리해석을 시도하고, 병존적 채무인수 법리를 적용하여 해석론을 정립하고자 시도했다. 노동쟁의 정의의 확대도 실제로 현장에서 단체교섭과 노동쟁의의 조정이 어떻게 진행되는지에 관하여 전혀 고려하지 못한 채 입법이 되었기 때문에 그 해석과 적용 과정에서 심각한 혼선이 초래될 가능성이 크다. 이와 같은 혼란을 최소화 하거나 최소한 조기에 안정화 하기 위해서는 고용노동부가 준비 중인 지침뿐 아니라, 법원의 판례 형성과 함께 노동조합법 시행령 및 관련 규정의 적극적 정비가 병행되어야 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study was conducted with the aim of establishing an appropriate interpretive framework for the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA), which will enter into force on 10 March 2026. It applies the amended Act to a range of foreseeable issues, sets out the interpretive difficulties that arise in doing so, and, on the basis of existing legal doctrines, explores what the proper interpretations of the amended provisions should be.
The amended TULRAA extends the range of an employer who may serve as the counterpart in collective bargaining to include substantial (de facto) employers, thereby reflecting the legislature’s intent to prevent the evasion of responsibility within principal–subcontractor structures and to secure workers’ effective bargaining rights. However, the statutory phrase “a position to exercise substantial and specific control over working conditions” is inherently abstract and is likely to generate confusion in various procedural and substantive contexts, including the identification of the proper bargaining counterpart, the public notice of a bargaining demand, and the assessment of unfair labor practices. The expanded employer concept also raises issues of coherence with other provisions of the Act and may undermine legal certainty and predictability. To prevent such problems and to develop a reasonable interpretive framework, this article attempts a careful textual analysis of the amended provisions and, as a complementary interpretive device, proposes to employ the civil-law doctrine of cumulative assumption of obligations. It further argues that, in order to minimize the confusion that may arise in practice, not only should the Ministry of Employment and Labor issue clear administrative guidelines, but judicial precedents must be developed in tandem with revisions to the Enforcement Decree of the TULRAA and related regulations.
The expansion of the statutory definition of “labor dispute” adds “the status of workers” to the scope of the concept and includes within it conflicts over disagreements concerning “managerial decisions affecting working conditions” and disputes arising from “clear violations by the employer of matters listed in Article 92(2)(a) through (d) of a collective agreement.” This expansion suffers from significant conceptual ambiguity and, because it was driven primarily by the aim of broadening the permissible subjects of industrial action and collective bargaining while overlooking the fact that the definition of labor dispute also determines the scope of cases subject to conciliation before Labor Relations Commissions, it presents intractable difficulties in practice. Addressing these problems through interpretive means requires highly proactive interpretive intervention. As one such approach, this article proposes to import the limiting criterion of “substantial and specific” impact—used in connection with the broadened, wide-sense employer concept—to the notion of “managerial decisions affecting working conditions,” thereby construing labor disputes as encompassing only those decisions that have a substantial and specific, rather than merely vague or remote, impact on workers’ terms and conditions of employment.