쟁의행위의 정당성 판단과 권리분쟁

In Korea, right of collective action is guaranteed as fundamental labor rights of workers by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees workers' three labor rights as follows. Article 33(1) of the Constitution stipulates that "to enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action." Fundamental labor rights of the Constitution should be shaped into the promotive institution through labor legislation. Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) is to improve the working conditions and to improve the economic and social status of workers by securing the workers' rights of collective action pursuant to the Constitution. TULRAA is subordinate to the Constitution, and then TULRAA’s lawmaker should enact the provisions about the labor relations and the court should execute the law comply with the guiding philosophy on the Constitution. From the constitutional standpoint, industrial action is constitutionally expected normal phenomenons as a process of exercise of worker’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is undisputed that the right to “act collectively” includes the right to strike. No employer shall claim damages against a trade union or workers in cases where he/she has suffered damages because of industrial action under the TULRAA. Therefore industrial actions must be “justifiable” in order to be protected by the TULRAA, and the Constitution is understood to be predicated on the same requirement. But there is no definition o f“justifiability” in the TULRAA except the proviso of Article 37 (1) which says that no industrial action, in its purposes, and processes, shall violate legislations and public order. That is, de novo, industrial action was not allowed by the law. The courts usually look into the objective and the manner of industrial action by strict interpretations owing to the legal forms such as passive statutory immunities, not based on the workers’ fundamental labor right. The standard of “justifiability” can vary according to the objective of the industrial action whether it was justifiable or not. There is some controversy whether rights dispute is justifiable. The Supreme Court has consistently refused such a position as the rights dispute can be an objective of the industrial action, contending that TULRAA permit the trade union to act collectively for interests dispute. Decision of the Supreme Court base on the definition of the term “labor disputes” of the Article 2 (5) of TULRAA. Article 2 (5) provides that the term “labor disputes” means any controversy or difference arising from disagreement between the trade union and employer or employees association concerning “the determination” of terms and conditions of employment such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, other treatment, etc. But the judiciary should recognize the rights dispute as justifiable objective of industrial action at an affirmative view based on the workers’ fundamental labor right. The industrial action of workers’should be recognized in a wider level based on the fundamental labor rights of the Constitution, because the civil suits for damages caused by industrial action for large amount are maliciously used as means to fundamentally block the basic right of workers.