단체협약의 규범적 부분과 채무적 부분의 구별 법리의 재검토

The existing theories and leading cases have discriminated between the normative parties and the obligative parties for the collective agreement, and they have insisted on the existence of the difference between the normative parties and the obligative parties in the legal effect. The Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA §33) defines as following. Part of rules of employment or contract of employment which violate standards concerning working conditions and other treatment of workers specified in collective agreement shall be null and void(TULRAA §33①). Matters which are not stipulated by contract of employment, and what has been invalidated by paragraph ① shall be governed by terms and conditions of collective agreement(TULRAA §33②). The normative parties have been regally recognized by this Article. Namely, this Article have been asserted as the legal basis of the normative parties. In this Article, it is asserted that “standards concerning working conditions and other treatment of workers specified in collective agreement” are the normative parties. But articles of the collective agreement could not be discriminated between the normative parties and the obligative parties for the collective agreement. Articles of the collective agreement that the existing theories and leading cases have asserted as the obligative parties are including “standards concerning working conditions and other treatment of workers” in TULRAA §33. And TULRAA doesn't define the collective agreement as Norm(or Regulation). And the normative parties and the obligative parties can exist together in an article of the collective agreement. So the theory of law about the discrimination between the normative parties and the obligative parties for the collective agreement must be reviewed. In conclusion, I think that the effect in TULRAA §33 is named not as the normative effect, but as the effect of TULRAA §33①, ②.