헌법이 보장하는 단체교섭권 실현을 위한 ‘사용자’ 찾기
Who shall be employers to respectthe right to collective bargaining?
윤애림(서울대학교)
53호, 75~127쪽
초록
1990년대 법원은 노조법상의 사용자를 근로자와 명시적이거나 묵시적인 근로계약관계를 가진 자로 등치시켜 보는 경향이 있었다. 1990년대 말 이후 비정규직 노동자들로 조직된 노동조합이 자신들의 노동조건을 실질적으로 지배하는 원청(내지 사용사업주)을 상대로 단체교섭을 요구하거나 단체행동을 진행하는 사례가 증가하면서, 기존의 법리는 도전을 받게 된다. 마침내 2010년 현대중공업 사건에서 대법원은 근로자를 고용한 사업주 이외에 ‘근로자의 기본적인 노동조건에 관하여 실질적이고 구체적으로 지배･결정할 수 있는 지위에 있는 자’ 역시 부당노동행위의 주체가 될 수 있다고 하여, 부분적･중층적 사용자성을 인정했다. 그러나 대법원이 제시한 기준(이른바 ‘지배력설’)은 ‘고용사업주의 권한과 책임을 일정 부분 담당하고 있다고 볼 정도로 실질적･구체적으로 지배･결정할 수 있는 지위’라는 식으로, 근로계약관계와의 유사성 정도를 판단하는 방식으로 다시 좁혀질 가능성을 내재하고 있다. 이러한 한계는 특히 단체교섭에 응할 의무가 있는 사용자의 범위와 교섭 사항을 판단할 때 두드러진다. 이 글은 이러한 지배력설의 한계를 극복하기 위해 ‘사업’의 측면에서 지배력을 파악할 것을 제안한다. 그리고 단체교섭의 상대방인 사용자의 범위 및 책임에 대한 판단은 노동조건에 대한 대등한 교섭력 확보라는 단체교섭권 보장 목적을 중심에 두고 이루어져야 한다고 주장한다.
Abstract
Employers’ responsibilities for workers’ rights associated with the standard employment relationship are easily avoided via the use of precarious work such as contract work and dependent self-employed. As industrial relations institutions were established under the limits of the scope of the standard employment relationship, this imbalanced distribution of risks and insecurity towards workers was hardly challenged. The Constitution declares that workers shall have the right to organise, collective bargaining and collective action (Article 33 paragraph 1). Under the Constitution and the Trade Union and Labour Relation Adjustment Act (TULRAA), an employer has the basic legal obligation to bargain with an eligible trade union, and shall not conduct acts of anti-union discrimination. (Article 81) The Supreme Court had decided that only an employer who entered into an employment relationship with an employee should take responsibility under the TULRAA until the 2000s. In other words, a user employer in work arrangements involving with multiple parties did not fall under an employer under the TULRAA. However, the working conditions of triangular employment workers cannot be improved unless a user employer enters into collective bargaining, since the real power in terms of finances and labour-management in practice lies with the user employer. As triangular employment workers have attempted to form a union, and to bargain with user employers since the early 2000s, the courts' view has gradually changed. In 2010, the Supreme Court held that one also should take liability for acts of anti-union discrimination under the TULRAA, in cases where he/she has position to control or decide effectively and concretely the employment and working conditions of other's worker. Recently, trade union movements in Korea have attempted to amend the TULRAA with a view to protecting collective labour rights of all workers, regardless of their employment status. The main demand is enlarging the scope of “employees” and “employers” beyond the one-to-one relation between the parties to an employment relationship. Collective labour relations could provide more opportunities for tailored and effective protection for non-standard employment workers. In this regard, realizing freedom of association and the right to collective action beyond an employment relationship and corporate boundaries should be considered essential for responding to the pressing question of decent work for all workers in the changing world of work.
- 발행기관:
- 서울대학교노동법연구회
- 분류:
- 법학