2008-2009. 필수유지업무결정에 대한 비판적 고찰

We have pointed out throughout that the compulsory arbitration for the labor strife in a essential public utilities was unconstitutional for the view of its trespassing a labor’s collective action essentially. ILO had also criticized it as invading right to labor. With introspective consideration in this manner, the essential preserving service institution was introduced. In the course of legislation, however, even a minimum criteria with respect to the essential preserving service had not been prepared, with many issues committed to labor relating parties or labor administration. As the result, many diverst of interpretation question had thrived and unsettled legislative duties remained. In addirion, in the coures of deciding the criteria of essential preserving service, the labor relation board assumed operative attitude like preceding compulsory arbitration. That is, the labor relation board did not intend to establsh a bill for the criteria of essential preserving which was consistent enough with the both labor relation parties in the way of mediation, and intend to dispose it in the style of compulsory arbitration empathizing only rapid settlement. On the other hand, the board boardened the extent of a essential preserving service and, decided the criteria of the essential preserving service as even 70-80% of ordinary services. Consequenly, the right to a collective action was limited broadly and in advance by the essential preserving service institution, likewise by a the compulsory arbitration system. That is why we asserted that it violated the prohibitional principle of over-limitation In the 2008-2009 process of deciding essential preserving services, it had been exposed the problems that the board jumped over the supplementary role related to essential preserving service agreement, that such criteria of essential preserving service as 70-100% were conclued, that in the content of the decided, were omitted riciprocal benefits and protection of law between general public convenience and right to collective action, that the board did not set the term of the validity in the essential preserving service decisions, the provisions of the law were not clarified and accurate. To overcome the unconstitutionality and the problem, the following remedies should be introduced ; the maximum level which is for the purpose of preventing the board decisions from exceeding 50%, making a chang in trial process from compulsory arbitration to mediation, the tentative decision which has six months to a year short term of the validity, making a chang in the punishment of the violation against the decisions from penal servitude to fine or diciplinary punishment. Above all, It is important that the boards make an endeavor to improve the related insitutions in the direction of harmonizing the general public convenience with the right to collective actions.