노동조합법 제3조 개정안에 대한「책임법(Haftungsrecht)」상의 검토

Abstract

Currently, eight proposals for the amendments to Article 3 of the Trade Union Act have some differences in content, but can be summarized as follows. ① Basically, this issue is recognized as a conflict of basic rights between the property rights of Article 23 of the Constitution and the labor rights of Article 33 (1) of the Constitution. ② Currently, the conflict of basic rights caused by Article 3 of the Trade Union Act has been adjusted through the interpretation and application of the same by the courts. ③ However, the amendments aim to further expand the three labor rights and reduce property rights by readjusting such adjustments. In other words, the amendments try to limit not only legal strikes but also liability for damages caused by illegal strikes. However, according to the liability law, such amendments seem difficult to accept. If we look at the contents of the amendments based on the principle of liability law, ① the issue that runs through the amendments is understood as "prohibition of liability for damages due to illegal strikes that do not accompany violence or destruction", but such purpose seems difficult to accept at least based on the law of liability. ② However, although liability reduction for those with minor illegality may be considered, it is questionable whether the requirements for liability reduction can be met or whether liability reduction can be justified for reasons unrelated to liability composition requirements. ③ In the current legal system, it is considered a way not to deviate from the principles of liability law to expand the possibility of sculpting the illegality of illegal acts by easing the justification requirements for industrial acts.