직장점거, 직장폐쇄 그리고 퇴거불응
Sit-in, Lock-out and Refusal to Evacuate
정인섭(숭실대학교)
18권 1호, 109~138쪽
초록
이제까지 판례는 직장점거 이후 사용자가 정당하게 직장폐쇄를 하면, 사업장에 대한 물권적 지배권이 전면적으로 회복되어 직장점거 중인 근로자에 대해서 퇴거요구를 할 수 있고 그 이후 직장점거는 퇴거불응죄에 해당된다고 해석하고 있었다 그런데 평석대상판결은 기존 판례의 기본적인 법리는 그대 로 유지하면서도, 기존 판례법리의 실질적인 변경에 가까운 법리를 제시하고 있다. 평석대상판결은 직장폐쇄에서 직장점거 위법화 계기를 찾았던 기존 판례와는 달리, 정당한 직장점거에는 처음부터 사용자에게 퇴거요구에 대한 제한의 계기가 내포되어 있음을 인정한 것으로 보인다 처음부터 사용자의 수인 의무의 범위 내에 있는 직장점거는 정당한 것이며 사용자가 직장폐쇄를 이유로 한 퇴거요구가 이러한 상황을 변경시키는 것은 아니라는 취지이다. 직장폐쇄가 사용자의 쟁의대항수단이라는 원래의 성격과 무관하게, 현장에서는 사용자가 사업장의 지배를 회복시키는 수단으로 받아들여져 왔다 그리고 그러한 관행의 배후에는 기존의 판례법리가 있었다 평석대상판결을 계기로 직장폐쇄가 직장점거를 배제하는 수단으로 활용되었던 이제까지 현장의관행이 앞으로는 개선되기를 기대한다.
Abstract
In Nov.-Dec. 2005, several unionists had taken sit-in actions for 24 days in the office of Seoul Chapter of the Korean Institute of Registered Architects(hereinafter “"S.C.-KIRA”"). They were mainly the members of the KIRA branch of Construction-Engineering Union at that time(From Mar. 2007, the Construction-Engineering branch of Korean Public ＆ Social Service Workers’Union). They were prosecuted with a crime of refusal to evacuate in that they had continued sit-in actions after the S.C.-KIRA’ request of evacuation following S.C.-KIRA’ lock-out. The single judge declared them guilty. The panel division didn’ reverse this judgement. It followed the precedent case faithfully. But Supreme Court declared that the judgment ofthe Court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division(hereinafter “IRA Case”. In Nov.-Dec. 2005, several unionists had taken sit-in actions for 24 days in the office ofSeoul Chapter of the Korean Institute of Registered Architects(hereinafter “.C.-KIRA”. They were mainly the members of the undertaking branch of Construction-Engineering Union at that time(now the Construction-Engineering branch of Korean Public ＆ Social Service Workers’Union). They were prosecuted with a crime of refusal to evacuate in that they had continued sit-in actions after the S.C.-KIRA’ request of evacuation following S.C.-KIRA’ lock-out. The single judge declared them guilty. The panel division didn’ reverse this judgement. But Supreme Court declared that the judgment of the Court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division(hereinafter “IRA Case”. KIRA Case shows both coherence and difference of the precedent case. The former is that KIRA Case recognised ‘ock-out can rule out sit-in’ The latter is that KIRA Case confirmed that ‘ock-out cannot rule out just sit-in’ The precedent case had been the plausible - in addition legally legitimate - excuse of the employers’reluctance to sit-in and the use of lock-out not as an industrial action but as a kit to rule out unionists from their undertakings. I hope that KIRA Case will serve as a momentum of the normative improvement to bring the jurisprudence on the industrial concerted activities, especially lock-out after sit-in and sit-in after lock-out.
- 발행기관:
- 한국고용노사관계학회
- 분류:
- 경영학