earticle

영어

Employers as unfair labor practices and employers as collective bargaining parties can not be judged to be uniformly the same or different. For example, the type of unfair labor practices can be regarded as the same in relation to the denial of collective bargaining, but it is different in relation to disadvantageous handling or dominant intervention. As with the Supreme Court case, a employer who has been subjected to unfair labor practices or to unfair labor practices involving dominant intervention may become a contractor. However, as in the case of the case, a employer who has committed unfair labor practices to refuse collective bargaining with a subcontracted labor union becomes a subcontractor who is a collective bargaining party under the premise of an employment contract relationship. In conclusion, the conclusion of the ruling that the contractor is not the party to conclude collective bargaining or collective agreement with the subcontractor trade union seems reasonable. In the case of the Supreme Court, in the case of a subcontracted worker, the subcontractor is a person who is in a status of substantial and specific decision of domination. Therefore, the subcontractor is recognized as a employer as an unfair labor practice subject, I did not recognize the business as a employer. As a result, Hyundai Heavy Industries (Hyundai Heavy Industries) is the actual decision maker of the subcontractor, and is not the party to the implied labor contract. In addition to the fact that the contents of the facts are different from one case to another, there is a difference between the subcontractor and the subcontractor in the contents of the subcontractor relationship. Therefore, the employer should not be judged or generalized uniformly. However, the case law suggests ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ in accordance with the expansion of the employer concept in order to judge the employers as collective bargaining parties in the in-house subcontracting relationship. As a collective bargaining agent based on this implicit labor contractual relationship, the employer is distinct from the employer as a subject of unfair labor practice, which is in a status of practical and specific ruling on the subcontractor trade union. This is because those who are in a position of actual or specific ruling can not, of course, become employers in the implicit labor contract relationship. In the end, ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ is related to the expansion of employer concept, and ‘actual and specific status of dominant decision’ should be related to the expansion of the subject of unfair labor practice.