노사분규시 경찰의 대응기준에 관한 연구- 경찰의 노사분규 대응 매뉴얼 개정안을 중심으로-

Abstract

Backward Labor-management dispute relying on illegal acts and violence is the typical cause for Korea Discount, and it causes enormous social costs and undermines the potential of national economic growth. Although the police has maintained the‘Zero Tolerance Principle’ and has been tough on illegal labor-management disputes that destroy law and order, it takes sophisticated judgment and justification to determine the illegality of labor-management dispute and mobilize police force as the actual scene of labor-management dispute involves complicated dynamics and has its unique characteristics. For this, the police has respected the autonomous settlement of labor-management dispute between both parties as much as possible and refrained from the mobilization of police force, however, has been criticized for causing negative influence on establishing law and order in the industrial settings with such an attitude and for safeguarding private companies unilaterally. Under the circumstances, the police revised the Manual on Police Response to Labor-Management Dispute in June, 2009, to enable preemptive and prompt mobilization of police force, and particularly, provided the basis for the mobilization of police force as a precautionary measure and for the police intervention even in legitimate strike. However, excessive intervention of police force in labor-management issues which shall be fundamentally settled through labor-management autonomy would rather increase the illegality of labor-management dispute, and this is the characteristic of labor-management dispute and has been proven by the history of labor movement in various countries around the world. Therefore, this study analyzed the current status of police response to labor-management disputes and the problems centering on the revised manual on Police Response to Labor-Management Dispute and suggested the following. First, current manual for police response to labor-management dispute is written in overly abstract and comprehensive terms and formats and is deemed to be quite difficult for the police in the field to understand and apply the guidelines; and therefore, it is necessary to revise the manuals using detailed and specific terms. Second, it is necessary to turn the authority to determine the illegality of labor-management dispute and when to mobilize police force from the police to the ‘judiciary.’ This is coherent with recent phenomenon of the ‘judicialization of labor-management relations’ alongside the precedents of France and Japan. Third, it is necessary to specify the standard for mobilizing police force as a precautionary measure quite restrictively and specifically in accordance with Article 5 and 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and notify both labor and management in advance of the reason the police force will be mobilized in case it is decided minimum police force will be placed in order to eliminate unnecessary misunderstandings.