초록·
키워드
오류제보하기
There is not an union's ULPs in Korean Labor Law. American Labor Law, however, has not only an employer's ULPs, but also an union's ULPs in the NLRA.
Article 33 of the Korean Constitution protects employees' right to organize, to bargain collectively, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of maintaining and improving their working conditions. In addition, it guarantees the freedom of speech in Article 21(1). These employees' rights are embodied in TUALRAA Artile81(1-5) prohibiting employer's ULPs. When an employer violates ULPs, the Labor Relations Commission shall issue an order for remedies. Employer's ULPs, simultaneously, shall be punished by imprisonment up to two years, or by fine up to twenty million won under the TUALRAA Article 90.
In the U.S.A., on the other hand, the Constitution provides the freedom of speech clause in Article 1 of the First Amendment. The NLRA also stipulates that “the expressing of any views, argument, … shall not constitute…an unfair labor practice…if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit”(8(c)), “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer (1)to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees… (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization…”(8(a)), “It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents (1)torestrain or coerce(A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7…”(8(b)) etc.
Under theses statutory circumstances, it seems to me, employers' freedom of speech in workplace are especially restricted in the Korea, but American employers have more broad extents of the freedom than Korean employers. I think it is not important whether he or she is an employer or not in protecting the freedom of speech in principle. Because the freedom of speech is one of very fundamental rights, it should be respected so much in workplace as possible.
With respect to this idea, I intended to analyze employers' freedom of speech in U.S.A. relating to the election campaign and activities for organizing unions. To make a conclusion generally, the NLRB has taken a more flexible approach to employer prediction or statement with respect to possible plant closure, relocation, loss of business, job security, strike, a hard bargaining, statement of his legal position in almost cases. The NLRB does not completely deny employers the rights to mention the possibility of plant closure and strike.
I, however, try to analyze the freedom of speech of both employer and employee in workplace in Korea, Japan, and the United States. I reserve, therefore, the conclusion of this article.