지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
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.
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.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 미국의 노동조합 및 사용자의 언론의 자유 보장 규정
Ⅲ. 사용자의 언론자유
Ⅳ. 결론에 갈음하여
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
간접고용하의 부당노동행위 사례와 보호방안
노동법논총
2010 .08
-
사용자의 개념정립과 그 확장범위에 관한 법적 연구
노동법포럼
2013 .04
-
집단적 노동관계법에서 사용자 책임의 확대―간접고용을 중심으로―
노동법학
2004 .12
-
부당노동행위 유형별 사용자의 개념 - 사용자 개념의 외부적 확대를 중심으로
노동법포럼
2011 .10
-
사용자의 지시에 대한 근로자의 대응과 그 효과
강원법학
2008 .06
-
불이익취급의 부당노동행위와 입증구조 : 입증책임 전환 및 입증방법의 개선방향을 중심으로
노동법논총
2011 .08
-
노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 사용자
노동법논총
2009 .04
-
복수노동조합하의 단체교섭거부와 부당노동행위
노동법논총
2007 .06
-
헌법상 노동권 소고(小考) : 개별근로관계 사례를 중심으로
노동법연구
2007 .06
-
공동사용자 개념과 논의의 한국적 함의
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
미국의 임차근로자의 법적 지위
노동법논총
2011 .04
-
사용자 지시권의 내재적 한계와 제한의 결정원리
노동법학
2007 .06
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
사용자의 경영권과 근로자의 노동3권의 충돌에 관한 연구
산업관계연구
2007 .06
-
노동법상 근로자ㆍ사용자 개념 확대를 둘러싼 쟁점과 입법적 과제
노동법학
2014 .03
-
노동법학에서의 헌법학의 역할
동아법학
2010 .08
-
노조활동을 곤란하게 할 목적으로 한 행위의 부당노동행위해당성 : 대판 2011. 7. 28. 2009두9574를 중심으로
노동법논총
2012 .12
-
사기업 근로자의 표현의 자유 : 미국의 이론과 판례를 중심으로
미국헌법연구
2005 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-336-015327986