교섭단위 분리·통합 결정에 대한 (준)사법적 통제와 한계 = (Quasi) Judicial Control and Limitations of Determinations on Division of a Bargaining Unit or Unification of Bargaining Units

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(the Trade Union Act) Article 69 applies mutatis mutandis to the procedures for dissatisfaction with the determination of the Regional Labor Relations Commission(RLRC) to divide a bargaining unit or to unite separated bargaining units, limiting grounds for appeal to ‘illegality’ or ‘excess of authority.’ The Trade Union Act promotes the prompt conclusion of labor-management disputes by prohibiting the validity of the substantive content of the arbitration award from being questioned again, while refraining from judicial intervention in the content of the arbitration, which replaces the collective bargaining system and forms a collective labor-management relations order. The purpose of Article 69 must be applied as is even when there are grounds for objection to the determination to divide a bargaining unit or to unite separated bargaining units.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court broadly recognizes that “the illegality of the content” as a reason for objection to the arbitration decision is limited to “the case where the content is illegal due to violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc.”, while “the illegality of the content” as a reason for objection to the decision to divide a bargaining unit or to unite separated bargaining units is “a case where the need for separation or integration of bargaining units is denied by misunderstanding the law on the requirements for separation and integration of bargaining units, or on the contrary, the need for separation and integration of bargaining units is affirmed.” As a result, a full (quasi) judicial review was allowed to determine the necessity of separation and integration of bargaining units. This runs counter to the purpose of Article 69 of the Trade Union Act and also conflicts with the legal principles that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in relation to Article 69 of the Trade Union Act.
Considering the purpose of Article 69 of the Trade Union Act, which restricts reasons for objection such as arbitration decision to “illegality” or “excess of authority”, the separation of bargaining units as an exceptional system, and the nature of the decision to divide and unite bargaining units as a highly institutional and policy discretionary act, etc, the necessity of separation and integration of bargaining units cannot be viewed as the subject of judgment of “illegality of content.” Therefore, the Supreme Court precedent that considers cases where ‘despite recognizing the necessity of dividing or uniting bargaining units, the necessity is denied and the application is rejected, or conversely, even if the necessity of dividing or uniting is denied, the decision to divide or unite bargaining units is affirmed’ as “the illegality of the content” should be rectified.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김도형, "행정재판실무편람(Ⅱ)" 서울행정법원 2002
• 2 조윤희, "행정재판실무편람(IV)" 서울행정법원 2004
• 3 류지태, "행정법신론" 박영사 2016
• 4 도재형, "단체협약의 해석⋅이행방법에 관한 노동위원회의 제시 견해에 대한 불복방법 및 불복 사유" 중앙노동위원회 (25) : 2006
• 5 노동법실무연구회, "노동조합 및 노동관계법 주해 Ⅱ" 박영사 2023
• 6 손창희, "노동쟁의의 범위와 중재재정에 있어서의 위법⋅월권에 관한소론" 한양대학교 법학연구소 7 : 1990
• 7 김형배, "노동법" 박영사 2021