본고에서는 교섭창구 단일화, 지부교섭 위임 등 「2018 행정부교섭」의 법적·실무상 쟁점을 검토하였다. ‘교섭창구 단일화’는 복수노조 허용의 부산물이다. 복수노조 허용으로 중복교섭, 노노갈등 등의 혼란이 예상됨에 따라 이를 보완하기 위해 도입된 것이다. 교섭창구 단일화 제도는 효율적 교섭진행과 교섭비용의 절감 등 장점이 있으나, 교섭대표노동조합으로 결정되지 못한 노동조합의 단체교섭권 등 노동기본권을 본질적으로 침해한다는 지적이 있었다. 이에 대해 헌법재판소가 합헌결정을 내렸으나 논란은 여전히 계속되고 있다. 공무원노조법은 2005년 입법 당시부터 복수노조를 허용하였고 교섭창구 단일화에 대해서도 별도 규정을 두고 있지만 그간 이에 대한 실무상 문제제기나 이론적 논의는 활발하지 못했다. 그러나 공무원노사관계에서 단체교섭의 중요성이 커지고 행정부내에서도 본격적인 복수노조 시대가 도래하면서 교섭창구 단일화를 둘러싼 새로운 쟁점들이 부각되기 시작하였다. 이런 점에서 최근 고용노동부가 조합원 수에 따라 교섭위원을 선임할 경우 배분기준 등에 관하여 내놓은 행정해석은 주목할 만하다. 「2018 행정부교섭」은 물론 향후 공무원단체교섭에서 지침이 될 중요한 행정해석이란 점에서 본고에서도 이를 상세히 소개하였으며 소수노조에 대한 배려 등 관점에서 문제점도 지적하였다. 다음으로 ‘지부교섭 위임’이다. 이전 행정부교섭인 「2006 행정부교섭」에서도 17개 지부에 대한 교섭권한 위임이 있었다. 당시는 행정부공무원노동조합이 행정부 내 유일한 노동조합이었으나 현재 진행 중인 「2018 행정부교섭」에서는 국가공무원노동조합 등 3개 노조가 참여하면서 이에 따른 새로운 법적 쟁점들에 대한 검토가 필요하게 되었다. 지부교섭 위임시기, 교섭예비절차를 별도로 진행하여야 하는지 여부, 교섭위원을 배정받지 못한 소수노조의 참여 등 실무적인 관점에서 제기될 수 있는 논점들에 논의의 많은 부분을 할애하였다. 끝으로 ‘단체교섭 등 절차합의서’(이하 ‘절차합의서’라 한다)의 쟁점에 대한 검토와 최근 추진되고 있는 공무원노조법 개정 등 입법동향에 대해서도 간략히 검토하였다. 절차합의서는 본격적 교섭 시작에 앞서 교섭 진행원칙 등을 합의하는 것으로 노사간에 엄연한 시각차이가 존재한다. 노사간 이견이 큰 교섭위원의 격, 회의의 공개 등을 중심으로 검토하였다. 공무원노조법의 개정 추진과 관련해서는 개략적인 내용을 소개하고 특별히 본고에서 중점적으로 다뤘던 교섭창구 단일화와 관련한 개정부분에 대해 비판적인 견해를 피력하였다. 공무원노조법이 시행되면서 공무원노사관계가 우리나라 노사관계의 한 축으로 자리잡은지도 13년이 경과하였지만 공무원노사관계에 관한 관심과 연구는 아직도 부족한 상황이다. 본 연구가 공무원노사관계와 공무원단체교섭의 실질을 이해하는데 도움이 되고 또한 법이론과 실무의 간극을 좁히는데 기여할 수 있기를 기대한다.

This study reviewed legal‐practical issues of "2018 Executive Branch Negotiations" such as unification of bargaining windows and delegation of branch bargaining. Unification of bargaining windows is a by‐product of allowing multiple unions. As confusions such as redundant bargaining and union‐union‐conflicts are expected with the acceptance of multiple unions, a solution to this problem was introduced. The unification of bargaining windows has advantages such as efficient negotiation process and bargaining cost reduction but there has been an indication that the basic labor rights such as collective bargaining rights of trade unions which are not decided as bargaining representative unions are intrinsically infringed. The Constitutional Court has made a decision on constitutionality, but the controversy is still continuing. The civil service union law allowed multiple unions since the legislative year of 2005, and there are separate provisions for unification of bargaining windows, but in the meantime, conflicts and theoretical discussions in the field were not active. However, as the importance of collective bargaining has increased in civil service and labor relations, and the era of full‐fledged multiple unions in the executive branch begins, new issues surrounding the unification of bargaining windows have begun to be highlighted. In this regard, noteworthy is the administrative interpretation which is recently published by the Ministry of Employment and Labor as to the criteria for distribution when the member of the bargaining committee is elected in proportion to the number of union members. This study introduced the administrative interpretation in detail in that it is an important interpretation for “2018 Executive Branch Negotiations” as well as collective bargaining for public servants in the future, and also pointed out problems in terms of consideration of minority unions. Next is delegation of branch bargaining. In the “2006 Executive Branch Negotiations”, former executive bargaining, there was delegation of branch bargaining for 13 branch unions. At that time, the civil service union in the Executive Branch was the only union, but in the ongoing "2018 Executive Branch Negotiations," as three unions, including State Public Officials’ Labor Union, came to participate, it was necessary to review new legal issues in accordance. Most of the discussion was devoted to issues that could be raised from a practical point of view such as the branch bargaining delegation timing, whether or not to proceed separately the bargaining preparatory process, and the participation of minority unions that were not assigned to bargaining committees. Lastly, this study reviewed briefly the legislative trends such as the examination of the issues of the 'Agreement on Procedures for Collective Bargaining' and the recent revision of the civil service union law. The procedure agreement agrees with the principle of progress of negotiations prior to the start of full‐fledged negotiation, and there is a clear visual difference between labor and management. This study mainly reviewed items such as rank status, and disclosure of meeting of bargainingcommittee, which had a lot of differences in opinion among labor and government. This study introduced the outline of the revision of the civil service union law, and especially, gave a critical view on the amendment related to issues such as the unification of the bargaining points that were focused on in this study. It has been 13 years since the labor union law was put into practice and labor relations became an axis of labor‐management relations in Korea, but still there is very little interest and research on the labor‐management relations of civil servants. It is hoped that this study will contribute to understanding the reality of labor‐management relations and public collective bargaining among civil servants and to narrow the gap between legal theory and practice.

multiple unions ‐ procedure for unification of bargaining windows ‐ bargaining labor union ‐ appointment of bargaining commissioners ‐ delegation of bargaining rights ‐ estimation of the number of union members