노동위원회에 의한 단체협약의 해석 또는 이행방법에 관한 견해의 제시 - 대상 재결: 중앙노동위원회 2020. 4. 13. 2020단협3 결정 -

Abstract

Collective agreements are documents that have been agreed on as a result of collective bargaining between trade unions and employers or employers’ organizations, regarding working conditions and other issues related to industrial relations. Collective agreements require contractual agreement between the parties because the nature of the agreement is a contract, but sometimes the dispute between labor and management over interpretation etc. arises because the content is unclear or insufficient. In this case, it is necessary to clarify the objective and normative meaning of the agreement in accordance with the general principles of contract interpretation. Collective agreements are also the norms of autonomy between labor and management. Therefore, it is a principle that labor and management will decide in case of disagreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of collective agreements. However, if consultation between labor and management does not occur smoothly, a means to quickly resolve it is needed, and this is a system for presenting opinions by the labor relations commission (Article 34 of the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). This study reviewed cases of opinions presented by the labor relations commission regarding the interpretation and implementation of collective agreements. This study will mention it in detail in the review of target adjudication, but the labor relations commission considers the target of opinion presentation very limited. That is to say, it is a position that specific interpretation or opinions can be given only to the contents already agreed by the parties. It also does not differentiate between interpretation and implementation of collective agreements. In view of the nature of collective agreements, which are self‐governing norms, the conclusion of target adjudication can be accepted in that it is the formation of new collective agreements or the creation of obligations to give opinions on how to interpret or implement content that the parties have not agreed to. However, it is regrettable that the target adjudication has not been exquisitely reviewed in determining whether or not to present a target for presenting opinions regarding the specificity of the civil service union law (such as negotiations), statutes, and non‐compliance with procedural requirements set forth in agreements. In addition, it is thought that it is necessary to actively present opinions as the current law introduced the labor relations commission’s opinion presentation system in order to resolve the labor‐management conflict. In this perspective, unlike the ‘interpretation of collective agreements’ that presupposes stipulations of regulations, the labor relations commission may have room to be more flexible in presenting opinions by considering the negotiation process and the intention of the parties to the agreement.