Earticle

현재 위치 Home

약관과의 비교를 통한 취업규칙 규제의 문제점
Problems Involved in Regulating Terms of Employment when Compared with that of Standardized Contract Terms

첫 페이지 보기
  • 발행기관
    민사법의 이론과 실무학회 바로가기
  • 간행물
    민사법의 이론과 실무 바로가기
  • 통권
    제13권 제2호 (2010.06)바로가기
  • 페이지
    pp.65-111
  • 저자
    정명현
  • 언어
    한국어(KOR)
  • URL
    https://www.earticle.net/Article/A165146

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

9,600원

원문정보

초록

영어
Employers are willing to pre-formulate the terms of employment to enter into contracts with employees. Employers enact in the field of labor contracts the rules of employment for the purpose of concluding agreements with multiple employees, whereby the contractual partners of the employer, i.e. the employee are in a similar position as consumers confronting standardized contract terms of entrepreneur enjoying privileged market position. Employers, who will act as less-controlled entrepreneurs, are mighty enough to "dictate" the individual terms of contracts. Entrepreneurs have power to determine every and each condition of such contracts unilaterally in an overwhelming position, which would lead to the inevitability of making one of the two extreme choices, so to say "take it, or leave it" situation. When it comes to labor problems, the cause of these typical situation lies in imbalance of possibility to have influence on the contract terms, which originates from the deficiency of a third choice on the side of the contractual partner, or rather, employee.
The Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act is enacted to establish sound order in business transactions and thus to protect consumers from confronting standardized contracts containing standardized contracts with unfair terms and conditions in them. Like the standardized contracts, the terms of employment containing unfair terms and conditions which correspond to the "abuse" concept of their prevailing negotiation position needs legal regulation. Therefore, the terms of employment is regulated by the Labor Standard Act. This study shows the difference between the regulations on the dimensions of contract- and/or consumer law and labor law, respectively.
In case of standardized contracts, an entrepreneur shall clearly state to his customers the terms and conditions of standardized contract and deliver a copy of it and help the customer understand it. If an entrepreneur violates this article, he may not have the standardized contract terms integrated in the relevant contract. However, in case of the terms of employment, there is no any statutory provision ruling the legal effect when an employer has not satisfied all the requirements.
This problematic reality is accessible to disputes in each specific cases. Where any part of the standardized contracts is null and void under article 6 through 14 that govern the legal effect of unfair clauses in standardized contracts, the relevant contract shall not be null and void as a whole pursuant to the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. But where any part of the terms of employment is unfair or unfavorable to the consumers, the relevant provision is recommended to be corrected properly by way of administrative guidance which has no legal binding force.
A person who has legal interests and a third party who is consumer-related organization etc may request for examination whether the standardized contract violate the Act. But there is no such statutory provision in case of unfairness of the terms of employment. There is an obvious difference in the penalty imposed to a person who fails to comply to an order of the Fair Trade Commission or the Ministry of Employment and Labor between standardized contracts and the terms of employment.
The Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides the detailed rules about the standard contract terms used in relevant transactions. The Ministry of Employment and Labor promulgates with authority the standard terms of employment and distributes it to the employers, but legal basis is lacking and could hardly be more than a detailed guidance served as a sample. Wide usage of such standard terms of employment requires the process.

목차

Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
 Ⅱ. 약관과 취업규칙의 비교
  1. 개념상의 차이
  2. 성립상의 차이
  3. 내용통제상의 차이
  4. 규제상의 차이
 Ⅲ. 취업규칙 규제의 문제점
  1. 근로계약 및 단체협약에 관한 논의
  2. 계약편입 및 내용통제에 관한 논의
  3. 규제에 관한 논의
 Ⅳ. 결론
 참고문헌
 

키워드

약관 표준약관 취업규칙 표준취업규칙 약관의 규제 취업규칙의 규제 standardized contracts the terms of employment the standard rules of employment the regulation of standardized contracts regulation of rules of employment

저자

  • 정명현 [ Jung, Myung-Hyun | 법학박사, 동아대학교 초빙교수. ]

참고문헌

자료제공 : 네이버학술정보

간행물 정보

발행기관

  • 발행기관명
    민사법의 이론과 실무학회 [The Association of Theory and Practics of Private Law]
  • 설립연도
    2002
  • 분야
    사회과학>법학
  • 소개
    법은 善과 術(Jusest ars boni et eaqui)이라고 한다. 법학 연구의 일반적인 경향은 선과 형평에 관한 문제를 실체법분야에서 총괄적으로 다룬다면, 그 '術'에 해당하는 부분은 소송법 분야에서 다루어진다 할 것이다. 법학은 모름지기 실체법을 외면한 소송법만의 연구가 허탈에 빠지게 되고, 또 소송법을 경시하는 실체법만의 연구도 공허할 수 밖에 없다. 민사법의이론과실무학회는 실체법과 소송법이라는 구체적 전문성의 차이가 있음에도 불구하고 공동발표회를 가짐으로써 상호 보완하고 보다 깊게 민사법 연구의 전문성을 살려나가는데 그 목적이 있다.

간행물

  • 간행물명
    민사법의 이론과 실무 [Journal of Theory and Practics of Private Law]
  • 간기
    연3회
  • pISSN
    1598-9801
  • 수록기간
    2002~2025
  • 등재여부
    KCI 등재
  • 십진분류
    KDC 365 DDC 347

이 권호 내 다른 논문 / 민사법의 이론과 실무 제13권 제2호

    피인용수 : 0(자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)

    함께 이용한 논문 이 논문을 다운로드한 분들이 이용한 다른 논문입니다.

      페이지 저장