사립학교법인의 연대교섭의무와 헌법적 문제

Private Educational Institution`s Obligation to Negotiate with Unions and Constitutional Issues

헌법 제33조는 근로자에게 노동3권을 보장하고 있는데, 여기서 교원과 공무원을 어떠한 규율체계로 형성할 것인지, 이들에게 노동3권의 어느 범위까지 허용할 것이며 또한 어떤 범위까지 권리주체의 범위로 포섭할 것인지에 대하여 오랫동안 사회적 쟁점이 되어 왔었다. 그러다가 입법자는 헌법정신에 보다 부합하는 노동3권의 규율체계를 만들기 위하여 다양한 사회적 논의를 거쳐 교원과 공무원에게 단결권과 단체교섭권을 허용하는 것으로 구체적인 특례법을 만들었다. 특히 교원의 근로는 일반 근로자가 제공하는 근로와 몇 가지 측면에서 달리 인식될 여지가 존재하기 때문에 다른 입법적 선택의 가능성은 열려있다. 우리 입법자는 교원노조의 설립단위 측면에서 국·공립학교와 사립학교를 구분하지 않고 전국단위 또는 시·도단위인 광역단위로 설립되도록 하였지만, 단체교섭의 측면에서 보면 이 둘을 서로 분리하면서 사립학교의 노사관계에서는 사립학교를 설립·경영하는 자가 교섭단을 구성하여 단체교섭에 임하게 하는 구조를 마련하였다. 이에 터잡아 이 글은 단체교섭의 측면에서 이분화된 입법체계가 사립학교법인들에게 교섭단을 강제적으로 구성하게 만드는 강제결사에 대한 문제와 이 구조 속에서 생성되는 교섭단 불구성에 대한 처벌문제를 중심으로 헌법 이론적 접근을 시도하였다.

The question whether teachers are laborers and whether they can be granted the Three Labor Rights has been a topic that has been debated for a long time. As the constitution guarantees workers the Three Labor Rights in Clause 33, whether teachers and public service personnel should be allowed with the Three Labor Rights and, if allowed, to what extent they should be accepted, have been a main controversial issue in our society. Passing through that process, legislators created a legal system with a method that allows teachers and public service personnel the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. However, legislators created a different regulation system from that of the regular workers due to the special characteristic of the labor relationship of teachers, even though they guarantee the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining for teachers. First, when looking at it from the perspective of the established unit, one larger labor unit can be established by combining the national·public teachers and the private teachers. Second, when looking at it from the perspective of the organization, the establishment of labor unions in eachschool is prohibited and can only be established through the larger labor unit. Third, when looking at it from the perspective of the process of achieving collective bargaining, the range of members who can be brought in when establishing a labor union included the national public teachers and private teachers. However, when carrying out collective bargaining for private schools, the founders and managers of private schools are forced to organize a negotiating group and then carry out negotiations in national units or city / district units. Specifically, when a labor union officially requests for collective bargaining, an incorporated private educational institution must form a negotiating group and be sincere in their collective bargaining. Due to this legislative structure, the incorporated private educational institution, which is the recipient of this structure, can only bargain collectively by forcefully joining an associationcalled a negotiating group, and they end up with a certain amount of limitation in the area of private autonomy. This constitutional problem becomes a problem of forceful association, and is open to becoming justified for carrying out certain exceptional public tasks. Nevertheless, for the incorporated private educational institution that has not joined an association, they do not have an opposing party and may receive penalty for unfair labor practices due to their absence. Thus, there is a need for this problem to be examined with regard to whether it can be harmonized with the principle of self-responsibility. The user shall be a negotiating body as a person concerned with collective bargaining, and the punishment given to an absent institution for an unfair labor practice is a problem that is generated from the legislative systemthat allows the establishment only of a larger size labor union unit. In this case, if all legal institutions that have to organize a negotiating body arepunished, it collides with the principle of self-responsibility. Moreover, even though the constitutionality is premised for a forceful association with the purpose of public interest, looking at the legal institutions that did not participate in forming a negotiating body as users of unfair labor practice and punishing them with criminal penalty can be construed as problematic.