Labor agreement - labor agreement

Japanese: 労働協約 - ろうどうきょうやく

It refers to an agreement regarding working conditions and other matters concluded between a labor union and an employer (or its organization).

Significance and Function

If workers deal with employers individually, they are in a position where they have no choice but to accept the working conditions as dictated by the employer. It also happens that workers get in each other's way and lower the working conditions. To prevent this, workers band together to form labor unions, and negotiate and settle on working conditions with employers through the labor union. The agreement concluded between the labor union and employer (or its organization) as a result of this collective bargaining is a labor agreement. In principle, a worker's working conditions are determined by a labor contract concluded between the worker and employer, but if there is a labor agreement concluded by a labor union backed by the power of solidarity, the latter takes precedence.

A labor agreement improves working conditions and establishes rights for union activities for workers, and also helps to strengthen and expand the organization of labor unions. At the same time, for employers, it allows them to avoid disputes regarding the matters agreed upon, stabilizes labor-management relations, and equalizes the competitive conditions between employers when labor agreements are concluded at the regional and occupational level. In particular, in foreign countries where trans-company labor unions by industry and occupation are dominant, labor agreements have a great social function, as they set minimum standards for working conditions in industries and occupations. In Japan, since labor unions are generally organized by company, labor agreements are also concluded at the company level. For this reason, labor agreements do not regulate working conditions broadly in industries and occupations. There are also problems such as the fact that they do not apply to non-regular employees even within the same company, and the rate of conclusion of labor agreements at small and medium-sized companies is extremely low.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

conclusion

The parties to a labor agreement are a labor union and an employer or their organization. Labor unions of specified independent administrative institutions, national forest enterprises, and local public enterprises can also enter into labor agreements, but labor unions subject to the National Public Service Act and the Local Public Service Act are not permitted to enter into labor agreements. Labor unions also include federations and labor union branches and sub-divisions. A labor agreement must be in writing and come into effect when both parties sign or affix their names and seals (Article 14 of the Labor Union Act). There is no need to specify a validity period in the agreement, but if one is specified, it cannot exceed three years (Article 15 of the same Act).

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

efficacy

A labor agreement has normative and obligational effects. The most important of the normative effects, which are legal norms within a company, is called "unchangeable effect." This effect is to invalidate the part of the labor contract that violates the standards for working conditions and other worker treatment stipulated in the labor agreement, and to determine the content of the invalid part and the part not stipulated in the labor contract according to the standards of the labor agreement (Article 16 of the Labor Union Law). For example, if the labor agreement stipulates a minimum guaranteed wage of 200,000 yen per month, even if an individual labor contract stipulates a wage of 150,000 yen, that part will be invalid, and the wage under the labor contract will be at least 200,000 yen. In addition, the effect of determining the standard of working conditions of this agreement takes precedence over the provisions of the work rules (Article 92 of the Labor Standards Law). Provisions or agreements regarding personnel matters such as dismissal of workers are also recognized as having normative effect, and the effect of personnel matters that violate this will be denied. There are disputes about cases in which individual labor contracts stipulate working conditions that are more favorable than the standards of the labor agreement. There is a conflict between the theory that not allowing "cheating" is justified in terms of protecting the unity of labor unions, and the theory that the agreement should only set minimum standards and that anything exceeding these should be permitted.

The obligation effect of a labor agreement is not an effect that automatically invalidates or supplements part of a labor contract like a normative effect, but an effect that, considering the agreement to be a kind of contract, will result in liability for non-performance between the parties to the agreement if they do not comply with it. The so-called peace obligation, which means that the parties to the agreement must not dispute matters stipulated in the agreement during the existence of the agreement, and the union shop clause are considered to have obligation effect, and if these provisions or obligations are violated, compensation for damages and the termination of the agreement are possible.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

General binding force

The normative effect of a labor agreement is expanded to bind people other than the members of the union that concluded the agreement or employers, and this effect is called "general binding effect." In Japan, when more than three-quarters of the workers of the same type who are regularly employed at a factory or workplace are covered by a labor agreement, the agreement also applies to other workers of the same type employed at the factory or workplace (Article 17 of the Labor Union Law). In addition, when the majority of workers of the same type in a certain area are covered by a labor agreement, the agreement can be applied to other workers of the same type and employers in the area, based on a petition by the parties to the agreement, by resolution of the Labor Relations Commission and decision of the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare or the governor (Article 18 of the same law).

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

"Modern Labor Law Lecture Series 6: Labor Agreements," edited by the Japan Labor Law Association (1981, General Labor Research Institute)" ▽ "Labor Case Law Series 14: Labor Agreements and Work Rules," edited by Aoki Muneya et al. (1991, Labor Junposha)" ▽ "Labor Law and Regulations Division, Labor Policy Bureau, Ministry of Labor, edited by, Easy-to-Understand Labor Agreements," (2000, Labor Administration Research Institute) ▽ "Labor Law Lecture Series 3: Determination and Change of Working Conditions," edited by the Japan Labor Law Association (2000, Yuhikaku)" ▽ "The Actual Situation of Labor Agreements, etc.: From Current Analysis to Prescribed Examples," edited by the Director-General for Policy, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2001, Labor Administration Research Institute)" ▽ "Labor Agreement Theory," by Kayatani Ichiro (2002, Shinzansha)" ▽ "Labor Agreements and Regional Expansion of Application," by Furukawa Keiichi and Kawaguchi Miki (2011, Shinzansha Publishing)

[References] | Collective bargaining | Labor union law | Labor contract

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

労働組合と使用者（またはその団体）との間で締結された、労働条件その他についての取決めをいう。

意義と機能

労働者は、個別に使用者と向かい合ったのではどうしても使用者のいうままの労働条件に従わざるをえない立場にある。また労働者同士が足の引っ張り合いをして労働条件を引き下げることも生じる。こうしたことを防ぐため、労働者は団結して労働組合を結成し、労働組合を通して使用者と労働条件などにつき交渉し取り決めるようになる。この団体交渉の結果、労働組合と使用者（またはその団体）との間で結ばれた取決めが労働協約である。労働者の労働条件は、当該労働者と使用者とが結んだ労働契約によって定められるのが原則であるが、労働組合が団結の力を背景に結んだ労働協約が存在する場合は後者が優先する。

　労働協約は、労働者側に労働条件の向上と組合活動上の諸権利の確立をもたらすとともに、労働組合の組織強化・拡大にも役だつ。同時に使用者側にとっても、取り決められた事項に関して紛争を回避することができ、労使関係の安定がもたらされるとともに、労働協約が地域・職種単位で結ばれると使用者相互の競争条件が均一化されることにもなる。とりわけ、産業別、職種別の超企業的労働組合が支配的な諸外国においては、労働協約は産業・職種の労働条件の最低基準を定めることになり、その社会的機能は大きい。日本の場合は、一般に労働組合が企業別に組織されている関係で労働協約も企業単位で締結されている。このため労働協約が広く産業や職種の労働条件を規制する状態になっていない。また、同一企業内でも非正規従業員に適用されないとか、中小規模の企業での労働協約締結率がきわめて低いなどの問題が存在する。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

締結

労働協約の締結当事者は労働組合と使用者またはその団体である。特定独立行政法人および国有林野事業、ならびに地方公営企業の労働組合も労働協約を締結することができるが、国家公務員法、地方公務員法の適用を受ける労働組合は労働協約の締結を認められていない。労働組合という場合、連合団体や労働組合の支部・分会も含まれる。労働協約の形式は、書面に作成することが必要で、両当事者の署名または記名・押印によって発効するとされている（労働組合法14条）。協約に有効期間を定める必要はないが、これを定める場合は3年を超えることはできない（同法15条）。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

効力

労働協約は規範的効力と債務的効力を有する。企業内の法規範としての効力である規範的効力のなかでもっとも重要な内容は「不可変的効力」とよばれる。これは、労働協約に定める労働条件その他の労働者の待遇に関する基準に違反する労働契約の部分を無効にし、無効になった部分および労働契約に定めのない部分について労働協約の基準に従ってその内容を決定する効力（労働組合法16条）である。たとえば、労働協約で最低保障賃金月20万円と定めていた場合、個々の労働契約で15万円の賃金を定めていてもその部分は無効となり、少なくとも20万円の賃金が労働契約上の賃金となるのである。またこの協約の労働条件基準を決定する効力は就業規則の定めにも優越する（労働基準法92条）。労働者の解雇などの人事に関する条項ないし協定にも規範的効力が認められ、これに違反する人事の効力は否定される。なお、労働協約の基準より有利な労働条件を個別の労働契約で定めた場合については争いがある。「抜け駆け」を許さないほうが労働組合の団結を守るうえで正当であるとする説と、協約は最低基準を定めるにとどまり、これを上回る分については認められるとする説とが対立している。

　労働協約の債務的効力とは、規範的効力のように当然に労働契約の一部を無効にしたり補充する効力ではなく、協約も一種の契約であるとして、遵守しない場合に協約当事者相互に債務不履行の責任が生じるような効力である。協約当事者が、協約存続中、協約で定めた事項について争ってはならないといういわゆる平和義務や、ユニオン・ショップ条項は債務的効力を有すると考えられ、これらの規定や義務に違反した場合は、損害賠償および協約の解除が可能となる。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

一般的拘束力

労働協約の規範的効力が拡張され、協約締結組合の組合員ないし使用者以外の者を拘束する効力を「一般的拘束力」という。日本では、ある工場・事業場に常時使用されている同種の労働者の4分の3以上の者が一つの労働協約の適用を受けるようになったとき、当該工場・事業場に使用される他の同種の労働者にも当該労働協約が適用される（労働組合法17条）。また、一定地域の同種の労働者の大部分が一つの労働協約の適用を受けるに至ったときにも、協約当事者の申立てに基づき、労働委員会の決議と厚生労働大臣または知事の決定により当該地域における他の同種の労働者および使用者に当該労働協約が適用される（同法18条）。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

『日本労働法学会編『現代労働法講座6　労働協約』（1981・総合労働研究所）』▽『青木宗也ほか編『労働判例大系14　労働協約・就業規則』（1991・労働旬報社）』▽『労働省労政局労働法規課編『よくわかる労働協約』（2000・労務行政研究所）』▽『日本労働法学会編『講座21世紀の労働法3　労働条件の決定と変更』（2000・有斐閣）』▽『厚生労働省政策統括官編『労働協約等の実態　現状分析から規定例まで』（2001・労務行政研究所）』▽『萱谷一郎著『労働協約論』（2002・信山社）』▽『古川景一・川口美貴著『労働協約と地域的拡張適用』（2011・信山社出版）』

[参照項目] | 団体交渉 | 労働組合法 | 労働契約

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Labor Bank - Roudoukinko

>>: Intensity of labour