메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
국민대학교 법학연구소 법학논총 法學論叢 第18輯
발행연도
2006.2
수록면
135 - 173 (39page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

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.

목차

Ⅰ. 직장폐쇄의 이론
Ⅱ. 판례의 축적
Ⅲ. 외국의 입법례
Ⅳ. 직장폐쇄의 한계
[Abstract]

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 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!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-016008884