勤勞者의 爭議行爲에 대한 正當性 判斷

Abstract

Until the end of the 19th century, any combination and concerted action by workers was generally considered illegal and subject to criminal or civil proceedings in the courts. However, this attitude has been changed gradually since the beginning of the 20th century, and the right of workers has been increasingly recognized to the point where such rights are often protected by law. This trend has been especially pronounced since World War Ⅱ. In Korea, the combination of workers and concerted action by them has also been guaranteed as a fundamental human right under the Constitution since 1948- the first year of the Republic of Korea. In my view, it follows that, since the right of workers to act collectively (Arbeitskampfrecht) is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Constitution, in turn, is the culmination of the overall legal order of the nation, the legitimacy of industrial action must be incontrovertible. In short, trade unions or workers who organize the action should be neither punishable for a criminal offence nor liable for any damages caused by tort. The question, therefore, is what criteria we should apply in setting limits to the immunity of workers from civil and criminal liability from the viewpoint of the so-called "bu¨rgerliches Recht." This is the "Legitimacy of Collective Action" problem which has already been discussed in depth from various points of view. Contemporary Korean law, however, provides only one general principle covering this matter that its purposes shall aim at the improvement of labor conditions and its methods shall not use physical violence to person or property. No other provisions suggesting any concrete criteria for the legality of concerted industrial action exist. Because of this lack of legal clarification, it has long been a major issue in the field of labor law to determine whether the purposes of political strike and sympathetic strike are lawful or not, and also, whether the methods, such as picketing, boycott and sabotage are lawful or not. Moreover, in cases where the law restrains or suppresses the methods, procedures, times, etc. of industrial action (as in Korea), there is a particular difficulty in judging whether such action is exercised contrary to these restraints and suppressions. In this thesis, I have given a systematic presentation of the major domestic and foreign theories and judicial precedents on the above-mentioned points at issue. This presentation is intended to make some contribution to the formation of a theoretical framework applicable to the Korean context. The main contents of this thesis are as follows; Ⅰ. Introduction A. Guarantee of "Arbeitskampfrecht" B. Purposes, Subjects, Contents and Methods of Study Ⅱ. Definition of Industrial Action and Work to Rule Ⅲ. Lawful and Unlawful Purposes A. Political Strike B. Sympathetic Strike Ⅳ. Lawful and Unlawful Methods A. Sabotage B. Boycott C. Ficketing D. Wildcat Strike (Unofficial Strike) Ⅴ. Industrial Action Violating Restraint Provisions.;憲法上 爭議權의 保障은 爭議權行使로서의 勤勞者의 爭議行爲에 대한 市民民法과 市民刑法에 의한 責任의 免除를 의미한다. 문제는 爭議行爲가 이러한 民·刑事免責의 범위 안에 드느냐 여부 즉 正當性 여부의 評價·判斷을 어떤 基準에 의하여 내릴 것인가에 있다. 이 論文에서는 이에 앞서, 正當性判斷의 대상이 되는 爭議行爲란 무엇을 말하는가를 우선 서술하였다. 다음에 爭議行爲의 目的의 正當性은 어떤 基準에 의하여 判斷할 것인가, 그리고 이와 관련하여 이른바 政治罷業, 同情罷業 등을 正當한 것으로 평가할 수 있는지 여부에 관한 여러 學說·判例를 소개·검토하였다. 그리고 爭議行爲의 目的이 正當하더라도 手段·態樣의 面에서 정당하지 않으면 그 爭議行爲는 民·刑事免責을 상실할 것이므로, 이어서 爭議行爲의 여러 가지 類型에 따라 爭議手段의 正當性判斷을 둘러싼 學說·判例를 紹介·檢討하였다. 마지막으로 目的·手段의 면에서 適法한 爭議行爲가 制限法令에 위반한 경우에 그 正當性判斷, 즉 民·刑事免責의 상실여부에 관하여 검토하였다.