단체교섭에 있어서 원청의 사용자성에 관한 연구(Ⅰ) -‘원청의 응낙의무’와 ‘실질적 지배력’ 논쟁을 중심으로- = A Study on the Employer Eligibility of the Original Contractor in Collective Bargaining (Ⅰ) - Focusing on the debate on the “original contractor’s obligation to comply” and “substantial control” - ﾠ ﾠ

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Traditionally, the employer who bears the obligation to comply with the labor union’s request for collective bargaining is in a “certain legal relationship” with the workers-that is, a labor contract relationship. The position of precedents is also the same as the foregoing. However, a recent lower court ruling (hereinafter referred to as “the target ruling”) recognizes the original contractor’s obligation to comply with the subcontractor’s labor union’s request for collective bargaining based on “substantial and concrete control and the right to decide” rather than “a certain legal relationship.” This judgment raises strong doubts.
Workers’ collective bargaining (rights) should be understood from the perspective of the legal act of concluding a collective agreement rather than a simple factual act. Collective bargaining can be defined as a “private act that contains elements of legal acts between labor and management.” Therefore, to recognize the original contractor’s obligation to comply with the subcontractor’s labor union’s request, a basis for the occurrence of the obligation is necessary. The most representative basis is the “labor contract,” and the original contractor’s obligation to comply may also be recognized due to “a cause that can be identified with it.” Therefore, a “relative legal relationship based on a special combination” can be formed between the subcontractor’s labor union and the original contractor, justifying the original contractor’s obligation to comply. In short, the target ruling presents “substantial and concrete control and the right to decide” as the cause of the formation of the relative legal relationship resulting from such a special combination.
However, the fact that the target ruling recognizes the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over the subcontractor’s workers and the right to decide on their request is a result that runs completely counter to the grounds for argument that led to the “factual grounds recognized” by the target ruling and the conclusion. This is because the target ruling presupposes a distributor’s shop consignment contract relationship between the original contractor and the subcontractor (i.e., a true subcontracting contract relationship) while actually recognizing the original contractor’s substantial and concrete control over and right to make decisions on the working conditions directly linked to the provision of labor by the subcontractor’s workers. If a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the original contractor and the subcontractor’s workers can be recognized based on the substantial and concrete control and right to decide (regardless of its name), it must be explained how the “original contractor’s actual influence on his business (place) (based on his property rights),” “rights to command in the dominant-subordinate relationship,” and “substantial and concrete control and right to decide” can be conceptually distinguished and via which different component markers. However, the target ruling is silent on the foregoing, and it is hard to find a view that presents the contents of the component markers of such substantial and concrete control and the right to decide.
In conclusion, the concept of substantial and concrete control and the right to decide is just a “rhetorical expression” without substance because it cannot be said to be a “certain cause that can be identified with a contract” that can form a relative legal relationship based on a special combination between the subcontractor’s workers and the original contractor.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 박지순, "｢노동조합 및 노동관계조정법｣상 근로자개념의 해석" 67 : 2021
• 2 이병태, "최신노동법" (주)중앙경제 2008
• 3 김규완, "채무와 책임" 5 : 2003
• 4 김희성, "원청회사의 하청노동조합에 대한 단체교섭 및 쟁의행위의 상대방으로서 사용자 여부와 대체근로" 67 : 2021
• 5 이해인, "원청의 하청업체 노동조합에 대한 단체교섭의무-대우조선해양중노위 판정을 중심으로-" 27 (27): 2023
• 6 김영문, "원청의 하청기업 노무제공자 노동조합에 대한 단체교섭의무–씨제이대한통운 사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회의 결정을 중심으로–" 55 : 2022
• 7 김희성, "원청은 하청노동조합의 단체교섭의 상대방으로서 사용자인가?" (34) : 2021
• 8 이정훈, "원청사업주의 실질적 지배력 판단지표" (54) : 2023
• 9 성대규, "업무도급과 위장도급의 구별에 관한 일고찰" (511) : 2023
• 10 권혁, "실질적 지배력을 가지는 원청의 노조법 상 지위" 51 : 2021
• 11 김민기, "사내하청과 단체교섭, 다시 해석의 자리에서" (56) : 2024
• 12 성대규, "보호의무(Schutzpflichten)에 관한 고찰-본질과 시사점-" (87) : 2019
• 13 권혁, "단체교섭질서와 원하청관계" 법문사 2012
• 14 박지순, "단체교섭의 당사자로서 사용자개념" 51 : 2021
• 15 장우찬, "단체교섭에서의 성실교섭의무에 관한 연구 : 한국과 미국의 비교를 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2012
• 16 김형배, "노동법강의" 신조사 2022
• 17 김유성, "노동법II" 법문사 1997
• 18 임종률, "노동법" 박영사 2011
• 19 김형배, "노동법" 박영사 2021
• 20 김형배, "노동법" 박영사 2010
• 21 임종률, "노동법" 박영사 2022
• 22 이영희, "노동법" 법문사 2001
• 23 이영희, "노동기본권의 이론과 실제" 까치글방 1990
• 24 성대규, "「인적 관계성」에 따른 채무(Schuld)의 내용" 21 (21): 2017
• 25 Krebs, Peter, "Sonderverbindung und außerdeliktische Schutzpflichten" 2000
• 26 Rieble, Volker, "Der Tarifvertrag als kollektive-privatautonomer Vertrag" ZfA 2000
• 27 Larenz, Karl, "Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm: Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, 1. Band, Allgemeiner Teil, 14" 1987