단체교섭 응낙의무를 둘러싼 쟁점 ― 교섭의제별 판단기준에 관한 검토를 중심으로 ―

Recently, the court recognized CJ Logistics Corporation, which is in a position to resolve the dispute, as a employer of a courier belonging to a agency. This ruling was very resonant in that it actively considered the meaning of guaranteeing the the labor rights under the constitution, presented arguments for the obligation of collective bargaining by employers other than the original employer, and outlined criteria for determining whether to recognize the obligation to collective bargaining. The ruling of CJ Logistics Corporation follows the basic legal principles established by the ruling of Hyundai Heavy Industries. Additionally, the ruling establishes and identifies an employer who is able to substantially resolve disputes in unfair labor practices involving the refusal to engage in collective bargaining. The phenomenon that the business network constitutes a multifaceted labor provision relationship is gradually spreading. In the past, such as the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries, most of the issues were dominated or influenced by employers other than the original employer on the labor conditions that the original employer had to determine in in-house subcontracting relations. In recent years, in various labor provision relations, the number of cases in which only employer other than the original employer can solve the an agenda for barganing is increasing. From the beginning, it is difficult to fully realize the right to collective bargaining if a person who is obligated to comply with the bargaining is determined based on the existence of the contract for matters that the original employer does not have the authority to control or decide. Recent rulings and decisions use the theory of practical dominance and recognize or deny the status of an employer with a bargaining obligation for each agenda for bargaining. This article analyzes and reviews recent rulings and decisions in light of the judgment of the CJ Logistics Corporation ruling. In particular, This article focuses on the CJ Logistics Corporation ruling, which emphasizes the importance of identifying employers who are responsible for bargaining each bargaining agenda. The discussion on the judgment of the person obligated to comply with the collective bargaining request for each bargaining agenda from the perspective of the concrete realization of the collective bargaining right seems to be just beginning. In the future, more in-depth discussions and criticism are needed on the theory of judging employers by the legal principles of the CJ Logistics Corporation ruling and the request for each barganing agenda. Through this, it is expected that the legal principles that judge A person who bears the obligation of collective bargaining will develop from the perspective of the specific realization of collective bargaining rights.