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
An employer is said to "lock out" its employees when, for tactical reasons, it refuses to utilize those employees for the performance of available work. The Act on Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment does not by its own definition declare the lockout lawful or unlawful(Art. 2, No. 6, LULRAA). The legality of lockout depends on the application of the general provision of Art. 46 LULRAA to the facts of any given case. Thus, if the purpose of the lockout is to punish employees for joining or designating a labor organization or otherwise to obstruct their free choice of a representative, this is clearly "discouragement of union membership" through the intentional deprivation of job opportunities and thus a violation of Art. 81 LULRAA.
Other lockouts may, however, be motivated by legitimate business reasons, These have been the subject of evolving doctrine in the courts. The three most common lockouts might be labelled, somewhat conclusorily, the defensive-economic lockout, the defensive-multiemployer lockout and the offensive bargaining lockout.
The court has traditionally held, that it is legal for an employer to lock out its employees when it is reasonably fearful of a strike which, it called at a time chosen by the union, will result in inordinate harm to the business, property, goods or goodwill of the employer. The defensive-economic lockout is, however, an inherently unstable concept. It is difficult indeed to differentiate "usual" from "unusual" economic losses. Moreover, since the union will normally utilize the work stoppage to cause serious inconvenience and loss to the employer. the "defensive" lockout was used by the employer to maximize its own bargaining advantage and minimize that of the union, and to achieve hereby a more prompt settlement on more favorable terms: that is precisely the object of the offensive or bargaining lockout as well.
The lockout designed to pressure a union into a prompt and favorable settlement at the negotiation is regarded as illegal. The employer may argue that the peaceful lockout is the analogue of the peaceful bargaining strike, but such a lockout interferes with the employees' right to strike and punishes the employees for adherence to their bargaining position, thereby violating Art. 81 LULRAA.
The nonstruck employers in a multiemployer bargaining unit do not violate the labor law when they lock out their employees and, to compete with the struck employer which remains open with temporary replacements, hires temporary replacements of their own. The question remains whether a single employer can lock out its employees in support of its bargaining position and then proceed to operate with replacements, either temporary or permanent either from within the plant or without.
An employer will typically hesitate long before implementing a lockout. Like a strike, it closes down the employer's operation, and its advantage lies only in usurping union's control over timing. An employer might prefer to steal a march on the union by exerting lockout-like pressure on employees while at the same time keeping the plant in operation and accruing profits. This could be done, for example, by locking out only part of the workforce within the bargaining unit rather than all, or by keeping all employees at work but subject to reduced economic benefits pending settlement of negotiations. The "partial lockout" is a rather new and not frequently litigated device, and its legality is uncertain at best.
Other lockouts may, however, be motivated by legitimate business reasons, These have been the subject of evolving doctrine in the courts. The three most common lockouts might be labelled, somewhat conclusorily, the defensive-economic lockout, the defensive-multiemployer lockout and the offensive bargaining lockout.
The court has traditionally held, that it is legal for an employer to lock out its employees when it is reasonably fearful of a strike which, it called at a time chosen by the union, will result in inordinate harm to the business, property, goods or goodwill of the employer. The defensive-economic lockout is, however, an inherently unstable concept. It is difficult indeed to differentiate "usual" from "unusual" economic losses. Moreover, since the union will normally utilize the work stoppage to cause serious inconvenience and loss to the employer. the "defensive" lockout was used by the employer to maximize its own bargaining advantage and minimize that of the union, and to achieve hereby a more prompt settlement on more favorable terms: that is precisely the object of the offensive or bargaining lockout as well.
The lockout designed to pressure a union into a prompt and favorable settlement at the negotiation is regarded as illegal. The employer may argue that the peaceful lockout is the analogue of the peaceful bargaining strike, but such a lockout interferes with the employees' right to strike and punishes the employees for adherence to their bargaining position, thereby violating Art. 81 LULRAA.
The nonstruck employers in a multiemployer bargaining unit do not violate the labor law when they lock out their employees and, to compete with the struck employer which remains open with temporary replacements, hires temporary replacements of their own. The question remains whether a single employer can lock out its employees in support of its bargaining position and then proceed to operate with replacements, either temporary or permanent either from within the plant or without.
An employer will typically hesitate long before implementing a lockout. Like a strike, it closes down the employer's operation, and its advantage lies only in usurping union's control over timing. An employer might prefer to steal a march on the union by exerting lockout-like pressure on employees while at the same time keeping the plant in operation and accruing profits. This could be done, for example, by locking out only part of the workforce within the bargaining unit rather than all, or by keeping all employees at work but subject to reduced economic benefits pending settlement of negotiations. The "partial lockout" is a rather new and not frequently litigated device, and its legality is uncertain at best.
#직장폐쇄
#정지설
#선고성립설
#실력행위설
#절충설
#대항적 방위권
#경영장애
#부분폐쇄
#암금지급의무
#주거침입죄
#퇴거불응죄
#중점파업
#노무수령거부
#공격적 직장폐쇄
#방어적 직장폐쇄
#대등원칙
#lock out
#Aussperrung
#Suspendierungstheorie
#Beriebsrisiko
#Schwerpunktstreik
#Arbeitsausschließung
#Angriffsaussperrung
#Abwehraussperrung
#Paritätsgrundsatz
#defensive lockout
#offensive lockout
목차
Ⅰ. 직장폐쇄의 이론
Ⅱ. 판례의 축적
Ⅲ. 외국의 입법례
Ⅳ. 직장폐쇄의 한계
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1991. 8. 13. 선고 91도1324 판결
근로자들의 직장점거가 개시 당시 적법한 것이었다 하더라도 사용자가 이에 대응하여 적법하게 직장폐쇄를 하게 되면, 사용자의 사업장에 대한 물권적 지배권이 전면적으로 회복되는 결과 사용자는 점거중인 근로자들에 대하여 정당하게 사업장으로부터의 퇴거를 요구할 수 있고 퇴거를 요구받은 이후의 직장점거는 위법하게 되므로, 적법히 직장폐쇄를 단행한 사
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1990. 5. 15. 선고 90도357 판결
가. 노사 양측의 의사에 관계없이 중재회부결정이 내려진, 이른바 강제중재의 경우를 규정한 노동쟁의조정법 제30조 제3호 소정의 ""공익사업""은 공중의 일상생활에 없어서는 아니되거나 그 업무의 정지 또는 폐지가 국민경제를 현저히 위태롭게 하는 사업으로서 같은 법 제4조 제1호 내지 제5
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
직장폐쇄의 법적 개념 및 성질
노동법연구
2004 .12
-
단결권을 위협하는 직장폐쇄의 정당성 여부 : 직장폐쇄가 정당하게 개시됐더라도 대항적ㆍ방어적 성격을 잃고 근로자에게 심대한 타격을 주며 단결권까지 위태롭게 한다면 정당성을 상실한다.(대상판례: 서울고법 2013. 6. 28. 선고 2012누29310 판결(부당해고구제재심판정취소))
노동법학
2013 .12
-
미국의 직장폐쇄
노동법논총
2012 .08
-
교섭창구단일화와 개별교섭의 법적 문제
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
간접고용하의 부당노동행위 사례와 보호방안
노동법논총
2010 .08
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
사용자의 개념정립과 그 확장범위에 관한 법적 연구
노동법포럼
2013 .04
-
복수노동조합하의 단체교섭거부와 부당노동행위
노동법논총
2007 .06
-
직장폐쇄의 법적 근거에 관한 연구
노동법포럼
2016 .11
-
사용자의 지시에 대한 근로자의 대응과 그 효과
강원법학
2008 .06
-
집단적 노동관계법에서 사용자 책임의 확대―간접고용을 중심으로―
노동법학
2004 .12
-
노조의 존립ㆍ자주성의 보호와 그 모순
노동법학
2006 .06
-
노동법학에서의 헌법학의 역할
동아법학
2010 .08
-
노동법상 사용자 적격성에 대한 검토 - 학교부문을 중심으로 -
원광법학
2012 .01
-
교원노조의 단체교섭 구조 개선에 관한 연구 (사용자측 교섭당사자를 중심으로)
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
한국과 미국의 단체교섭법제 비교 : 교섭단위와 교섭대표제를 중심으로
노동법학
2011 .12
-
노사의 단체교섭의 전략과 성실교섭의무
노동법학
2010 .12
-
사용자 지시권의 내재적 한계와 제한의 결정원리
노동법학
2007 .06
-
기업별 복수노조와 교섭창구의 단일화
노동법학
2005 .12
-
미국에서의 사용자의 언론의 자유와 부당노동행위
노동법학
2005 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-016008884