집단적 노사관계법의 변천을 통해서 본 노사자치의 특징과 한계

It is reasonable to state that the history of labor-management relations in Korea has been a process of establishing labor-management autonomy. In European countries, there was clear antagonism and a crisis of labor and management relations in the course of industrialization, before those countries achieved labor-management autonomy. Hence, in the cases of other developed countries, which have a long history of labor-management autonomy and have established its value order, their industrial relations appear comparatively stable as well. Since the four basic labor laws were enacted in Korea in 1953, they reflected the upheaval in the country’s political history. More specifically, the sphere of collective industrial relations was restricted to the extent that terms such as sam geum (restrict three things such as political activity, multiple unions and intervention of third-party in English) were coined under the development dictatorship and military dictatorship in Korea. In recent years, although these kinds of restrictions have been mitigated, the Korean society still has much to improve in the realm of labor-management relations as compared to other developed countries. In addition, as Korea’s history of collective labor-management autonomy is far shorter than that of other countries, it has been impossible to settle the labor-management relations at an early stage, and the changeable political situation has made it so that the labor laws have been revised whenever a new administration has assumed power. Furthermore, labor activism and the three basic labor rights—to organize, to bargain collectively, and to strike—were confined under the regime of development dictatorship on the pretext of “economic development” and “social stability.” These facts become clear when one considers the transitions of the Collective Labor Relations Law in Korea. In a rather short time, the Korean society experienced the Korean War and military junta, and attained small economic developments and steps toward democratization. However, the labor-management relations remained unstable. As shown through the transitions of the Collective Labor Relations Law, the main reasons for this are that Korean labor-management relations could not be established and developed on the basis of labor-management autonomy, and it has been distorted for political and economic reasons depending on the historical situation at the time. Therefore, in order to establish more stable labor-management relations in the near future, the value order of labor-management autonomy must be established by breaking out of the changeable political system. Lastly, from the current settlement details of collective agreements in lawsuits involving ordinary wages or subcontract labor, the role of the judiciary has become prominent. Of course, it is desirable that there be an end to the legal disputes. However, in this situation of relying only on the judiciary, in the worst case scenario, Korean will become dependent on the legal judgments of the judiciary, even though labor-management can settle disputes and establish good relations without external assistance. Consequently, there is reasonable concern that the foundation of labor-management autonomy might be shaken. Therefore, I would like to shed light on ideal state of labor-management autonomy. First, concerning the labor issue, legislative and judiciary interventions should occur only as necessary and on a minimal scale, to allow the parties involved, such as labor and management, to resolve the issue themselves whenever possible. Second, it is necessary to improve the legal framework such that it is inconsistent with the value order of labor-management autonomy.