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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2025.2
- 수록면
- 7 - 47 (41page)
- DOI
- 10.35505/slj.2025.02.14.1.7
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
With the ratification of ILO Convention No. 87, which guarantees the right to freedom of association, the government imposed fines on trade unions for failing to report on the maintenance and preservation of financial books and documents as required by Article 27 of the Trade Union Act. Furthermore, the government amended the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act to introduce significant changes in financial management, such as the disclosure of financial statements through an accounting disclosure system. This has raised practical and academic concerns about whether these measures violate ILO Convention No. 87 and whether it is permissible to regulate matters that restrict rights and impose obligations through administrative legislation rather than statutory law. The specific issues under discussion are as follows:
First, there is an issue of interpretation regarding the scope of application of Articles 26 and 27 in applying Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the Trade Union Act. Both Article 26, concerning disclosure and publication to union members, and Article 27, concerning reporting to administrative authorities, use the same phrase “financial statements and operational status.” It is necessary to interpret whether this phrase has the same meaning in both contexts, and to determine the extent of inspection, publication, and reporting of “financial books and documents” that trade unions must maintain and preserve according to Article 14, Paragraph 5.
Considering that the Constitution and the Trade Union Act guarantee the autonomy and democracy of trade unions, and that individual provisions of the law should be interpreted comprehensively and organically in light of the entire law, the interpretation could be as follows: The “inspection” in Article 26 of the Trade Union Act should be interpreted broadly,as it is meant for trade union representatives to inform members to ensure democracy. “Publication” should be more limited than inspection, as representatives may need to restrict some information from external disclosure to maintain autonomy while ensuring internal democracy. “Reporting” in Article 27 should be interpreted most narrowly, as it involves reporting only the minimum necessary information to administrative authorities to maintain union autonomy. Thus, considering the intent and purpose of the Trade Union Act, the scope of inspection, publication, and reporting of “financial statements and operational status” can be interpreted in descending order as inspection > publication > reporting.
Second, there is a conflict between the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act and ILO Convention No. 87. The government's verification of organizational business expenses, negotiation and dispute expenses, etc., through the Enforcement Decree cannot be considered a routine request for information. It could expose all of the union's strategies for membership activities and industrial actions to the government. This excessive administrative intervention could hinder the legitimate exercise of union rights, potentially violating not only the right to organize but also the right to collective action, which may contravene Article 3 of ILO Convention No. 87 and the decisions of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association.
Third, there is an issue of unconstitutionality in the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, which stipulates restrictions on rights and imposes obligations without legal basis in the Trade Union Act. Matters concerning the restriction of rights and imposition of obligations should be directly stipulated in the law or at least regulated based on legal delegation. The Enforcement Decree violates this principle and may be recognized as infringing on the autonomy and democracy of trade unions guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting the right to organize. Therefore, to harmonize the Enforcement Decree with ILO Convention No. 87 and resolve its unconstitutionality, the matters stipulated in the Enforcement Decree should be directly incorporated into the Trade Union Act or at least given a legal basis in the Act. Furthermore, these matters should be regulated in a manner consistent with the content and intent of ILO Convention No. 87.
First, there is an issue of interpretation regarding the scope of application of Articles 26 and 27 in applying Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the Trade Union Act. Both Article 26, concerning disclosure and publication to union members, and Article 27, concerning reporting to administrative authorities, use the same phrase “financial statements and operational status.” It is necessary to interpret whether this phrase has the same meaning in both contexts, and to determine the extent of inspection, publication, and reporting of “financial books and documents” that trade unions must maintain and preserve according to Article 14, Paragraph 5.
Considering that the Constitution and the Trade Union Act guarantee the autonomy and democracy of trade unions, and that individual provisions of the law should be interpreted comprehensively and organically in light of the entire law, the interpretation could be as follows: The “inspection” in Article 26 of the Trade Union Act should be interpreted broadly,as it is meant for trade union representatives to inform members to ensure democracy. “Publication” should be more limited than inspection, as representatives may need to restrict some information from external disclosure to maintain autonomy while ensuring internal democracy. “Reporting” in Article 27 should be interpreted most narrowly, as it involves reporting only the minimum necessary information to administrative authorities to maintain union autonomy. Thus, considering the intent and purpose of the Trade Union Act, the scope of inspection, publication, and reporting of “financial statements and operational status” can be interpreted in descending order as inspection > publication > reporting.
Second, there is a conflict between the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act and ILO Convention No. 87. The government's verification of organizational business expenses, negotiation and dispute expenses, etc., through the Enforcement Decree cannot be considered a routine request for information. It could expose all of the union's strategies for membership activities and industrial actions to the government. This excessive administrative intervention could hinder the legitimate exercise of union rights, potentially violating not only the right to organize but also the right to collective action, which may contravene Article 3 of ILO Convention No. 87 and the decisions of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association.
Third, there is an issue of unconstitutionality in the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, which stipulates restrictions on rights and imposes obligations without legal basis in the Trade Union Act. Matters concerning the restriction of rights and imposition of obligations should be directly stipulated in the law or at least regulated based on legal delegation. The Enforcement Decree violates this principle and may be recognized as infringing on the autonomy and democracy of trade unions guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting the right to organize. Therefore, to harmonize the Enforcement Decree with ILO Convention No. 87 and resolve its unconstitutionality, the matters stipulated in the Enforcement Decree should be directly incorporated into the Trade Union Act or at least given a legal basis in the Act. Furthermore, these matters should be regulated in a manner consistent with the content and intent of ILO Convention No. 87.
#노동조합법
#단결권
#자주성
#민주성
#ILO 제87호 협약
#노동조합 규약
#노동조합 재정
#열람·공표·보고
#법률 해석
#행정입법
#위헌성
#Trade Union Act
#Right to Organize
#Autonomy
#Democracy
#ILO Convention No. 87
#Trade Union Rules
#Trade Union Finances
#Inspection·Publication·Reporting
#Legal Interpretation
#Administrative Legislation
#Unconstitutionality
목차
국문초록
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 노동조합의 자주성과 민주성
Ⅲ. 노동조합법 제26조·제27조와 제14조의 범위 해석
Ⅳ. 노동조합법 시행령과 ｢ILO 제87호 협약｣의 충돌 해소
Ⅴ. 노동조합법 시행령의 위헌성 해소 방안
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
ILO 기본협약 비준을 위한 2020년 정부 노조법 개정안 분석과 평가
노동법학
2020 .12
-
ILO 결사의 자유 원칙의 국내법적 수용 과제 : 결사의 자유 위원회 권고 이행을 중심으로
노동법학
2017 .12
-
ILO 강제노동 협약 이행에 관한 유럽국가 사례 연구
유럽연구
2023 .05
-
ILO 결사의 자유 관련 협약의 국내 이행의 실태와 쟁점
노동법학
2025 .03
-
노동조합의 전임자 급여지급 금지와 근로시간 면제제도의 의의 및 한계
강원법학
2020 .06
-
해묵은 과제의 청산을 위한 노조법의 과제
노동법학
2023 .03
-
노조법 제41조 제2항에 대한 검토 ― 위헌가능성을 중심으로 ―
노동법학
2022 .06
-
ILO 기본협약 비준과 노동법의 개정
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
ILO ‘결사의 자유’ 핵심협약 관련 노조법상의 쟁점 해결 방안 : 단결권에 관한 사항을 중심으로
노동법학
2018 .12
-
ILO 핵심협약의 이행감독과 절차적 대응에 관한 고찰
법학논총
2022 .06
-
공무원노조법상 단체교섭권 제한의 해석적 한계 - 국제노동기준과 헌법의 조화적 해석을 위한 시론 -
노동법학
2024 .06
-
결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약 비준과 노사관계법의 과제
노동법연구
2023 .03
-
공공기관 노동조합의 노동기본권 보장과 ILO 핵심협약의 사법적 이행 방안
노동연구
2023 .06
-
ILO의 강제노동 관련 협약 비준과 이행의 해외사례 연구
노동연구
2018 .12
-
ILO 산업안전보건 분야의 노동기본권 보장을 둘러싼 법적 논의와 쟁점
노동법연구
2021 .03
-
개정 노조법의 주요 내용과 쟁점
노동법학
2021 .06
-
『고용과 사회전망 보고서 – 변화하는 일자리』(ILO, 2015)
사회보장법연구
2016 .12
-
「더 나은 미래를 위한 일: ILO 일의 미래 보고서」(ILO 일의 미래 글로벌 위원회 著)
사회보장법연구
2019 .12
-
노동조합 설립신고제도의 개선방안 - ILO 협약 비준과 교섭창구 단일화제도와의 정합성을 중심으로 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
ILO 핵심협약 비준을 위한 노동법 개정 방안의 모색
법학논집
2019 .01
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-092303037