Earticle

Home

노동법포럼 [Labor Law Forum]

간행물 정보
  • 자료유형
    학술지
  • 발행기관
    노동법이론실무학회 [Society of Labor Low Theory and Profession]
  • ISSN
    2005-4645
  • 간기
    연3회
  • 수록기간
    2008~2018
  • 등재여부
    KCI 등재
  • 주제분류
    사회과학 > 법학
  • 십진분류
    KDC 360 DDC 344.01
제24호 (8건)
No

특집: 형사법의 관점에서 바라본 노동법

1

임금체불의 형사법적 쟁점

권오성

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.1-32

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The Labor Standard Act stipulates criminal penalties for overdue wages.Since the delay in payment of wages is a default in financial obligations, there is a question that punishment for overdue wages is an excessive intervention in judicial relations. In addition, it is not appropriate to apply the general criminology system in the sense that it has the nature of a crime of omission. This issue deals with some practical issues relating to the criminal protection of wages.

7,300원

2

근로자 파견 법리의 불법구조와 분석 - 파견과 도급의 구별 기준 정립을 위한 시론 -

김대근

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.33-77

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

To manage an efficient business organization as well as save production and labor cost, businesses largely rely on external labor. External labor is mainly used in the form of in-house subcontracting where a client contractor (hereinafter “client”) facilitates workers of another prime contractor (hereinafter “contractor”) to work at the client’s workplace. The problem, however, is not in contracting out and making use of external labor. The problem is that even though businesses hire workers with rights protected by the Temporary Work Act or the Fixed-term Act, they disguise these workers as contract workers or entrusted workers to avoid being subject to related labor laws. Disguised subcontracting not only raises problems in the context of labor law, it also raises inequity issues. As disguised contracting is subject to criminal punishment under the Temporary Work Act, it is important to distinguish contract work and temporary work prior to punishing the user company. Unfortunately, the current law does not clearly distinguish the difference between contract work and temporary work. To be sure, progress has been made regarding this issue. As a result, many cases were accumulated and composed together to establish legal principles that provide standards to differentiate contract work and temporary work. In addition, in 2015, the Supreme Court provided a general standard using various cases including the Hyundai Motor case. Despite the provision of the general standard, however, a more explicit standard to differentiate the two works is required for the following reasons: first, the general standard is a mere group of signs drawn from previous cases; second, the general standard does not fully reflect the distinctive features of each respective type of in-house subcontracting; and third, the process of making a comprehensive judgement after individual judgement is very unclear and as a result, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015, judgements among lower courts have remained inconsistent. Also, the Korean government has been making efforts to address the problem of disguised contracting on industrial sites by referring to the Guidelines on the Judging Standards of Temporary Placement of Workers (April 19, 2007) as outlined in the Reference to Classify Temporary and Contract Work. However, these guidelines do not reflect the general standard set out by the Supreme Court in 2015. This type of miscommunication can hinder the predictability of judgements distinguishing temporary and contract work, and eventually weaken the public’s trust in law. It can also raise doubts on the effect of measures taken to prevent further disguised contracting. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Supreme Court focused on the status of the worker when establishing the classifying standard. Thus, further discussion is necessary to determine the suitability of the standard when applying it to interpret criminal elements related to the violation of the Temporary Work Act. Based on such research, this article concludes that the current Temporary Work Act should be at the center of establishing the classifying standard. This article also proposes a new standard to distinguish temporary and contract work focusing on the requirements of temporary work under the current Temporary Work Act, as well as the specific contents of the authority to conduct which was developed through the legal principle set out by the Supreme Court.

9,300원

일반논문

3

인사평가와 사법심사Ⅱ

강선희

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.79-108

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The results of the personnel evaluation are used in various ways, mainly as a basis for deciding whether to pay or get a promotion. Also, in the terms of personnel management, personnel evaluation is applied to transfer and career ability development. Furthermore, it is also used as a criterion related to termination of employment and various layoffs. In principle, personnel evaluation is within the authority of the employer who has considerable discretion in the scope of work. However, if the exercise of the authority violates the Constitutional law, Labor Standards Act and labor relations acts, it is subject to judicial review. First, I reviewed at what cases personnel evaluation could be subject to judicial review. Then, the results of personnel assessments among the types subject to judicial review were limited to cases where the results were found to be ‘dismissals’ as provided under Labor Standards Act Article 23 (1) and Article 24. Next, the results of the personnel evaluation were analyzed to derive the objectivity and fairness of the personnel evaluation. The results of the personnel evaluation have been reviewed in 4 different ways, with the results serving as the basis for the termination of employment. there are ① Personnel evaluation as a basis for dismissal of full-time workers, ② Personnel evaluation as reasonable reason for refusal to renew for part-time workers, ③ Personnel evaluation as a reasonable reason for refusal to hire an intern workers, ④ Personnel evaluation as criteria for selection of employees subject to the redundancy dismissal in the dismissal on account of management practices.

7,000원

4

노동조합 관리ㆍ통제를 위한 입법적 규율의 변천 - 노동조합의 정치적 기능을 중심으로 -

김종현

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.109-142

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

From the beginning of its history, trade union has made its continuous advance toward the goal of political empowerment. In other words, the entity of trade union necessarily involves political features and functions and such makes trade union impossible to repudiate itself from the political actions. However, the Establishment of society has never have felt comfortable with such political empowerment of trade union and has unceasingly tried to introduce legislative grounds to control and restrict it. Korean lawmakers as well implemented legal control and restriction over (i) the political actions such as election campaign and political funding, (ii) the amount of union dues, (iii) the legal capacity of union executives, (iv) the intervention of third parties, and (v) the finance and general management. The law makers also have introduced and maintained the (vi) dissolution order to trade union for a long time. Each item of restriction above may seem remote or unconnected to one another at a glance. However, when we study some concrete intentions expressed during the process of the legislation, it is hard to miss that the lawmakers have looked at trade union with deep distrust. In particular, it is believed that lawmakers used to think that ‘trade union will surely be contaminated by impure forces and eventually fail to fulfill its inherent functions if not put under relevant restrictions’. Accordingly, lawmakers have built up some supervisory and restrictive measures on trade union in the name of its political neutrality or democratic operation. Under the influence of such restrictive measures, trade union had to undergo many difficulties in making its advance toward the political empowerment throughout the history of labor law. The restrictive measures above have gradually been abolished since the June Movement in 1987 and the enactment of Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in 1997. Thus, considerable portion of the restrictive mechanism is no longer functional as of now. However, due to the inertia of former legislations that have applied for few decades, the political actions and political empowerment of trade union are still considered taboos in Korean society. However, the advance of trade union to the political fields is believed to be a consistent flow. And restrictive legislations on the political actions of trade union do not seem to be ultimate and feasible measures to promote the fulfillment of its inherent purpose: protection of workers’ right. It is desired that some meaningful improvement in the labor related law should take place to sufficiently and substantially guarantee trade union with the opportunities to its political actions.

7,600원

5

근로시간 단축법 개정의 경과와 쟁점

이영주

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.143-179

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The National Assembly on Feb.28th. passed a bill aimed at shortening work hours. The Labor Standards Act calls for reducing the country’s maximum weekly work hours to 52, down from 68. The revision allows 40 regular hours per week and 12 overtime hours, including those worked on weekends. To cushion the possible impact from the reduction, the law comes into force in July and will apply to large companies before being rolled out to smaller businesses. In addition, An employer shall allow workers paid holiday on statutory holidays of government offices. The number of business types exempt from the work hour limits will be curtailed from the previous 26 to five involving transportation services and health care. This paper aims to review the progress and issues of the revision. Although the impatience of legislative resolution before the Supreme Court’s ruling became the driving force of the amendment, various measures to ensure the right of workers to rest have been sought. The details are defective, but they should be understood in terms of legislative policy decisions.

8,100원

6

외국인 대학교원의 노동법적 문제에 관한 연구

전윤구

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.181-212

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

This paper examined the legal issues of hiring foreign faculty with expertise to develop higher education. First, it looked at the employment status of foreign professors at domestic universities and saw that there had been a legal barrier and legal disputes regarding recruiting foreign professors in the past. Based on this, it studied the legal issues raised in the process of hiring, hiring and ending foreign faculty. In particular, this study explored how the principle of priority employment of local citizens could be applied in the recruitment of faculty members, how such foreign faculty could be recognized as workers, and how the clause banning discrimination against nationality could be applied.

7,300원

7

독일의 유연근로시간제와 4차 산업혁명

조성혜

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.213-253

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Das Arbeitszeitgesetz (ArbZG) in Deutschland schreibt für Arbeitnehmer eine wöchentliche Höchstarbeitszeit von 48 Stunden und eine tägliche Normarbeitszeit von 8 Stunden vor. Sie kann aber auf 10 Stunden am Tag verlängert werden. Werden die Maximalarbeitszeiten überschritten, muss zeitnah ein Ausgleich erfolgen. Außerdem regelt das Gesetz die Ruhezeiten: Demnach stehen Beschäftigten innerhalb von 24 Stunden 11 Stunden Ruhe zu. Sonntage und Feiertage müssen laut Arbeitszeitgesetz für Arbeitnehmer grundsätzlich frei sein. Allerdings sind einige Branchen von dieser Regelung ausgenommen: Unter anderem werden Arbeitnehmer in medizinischen Berufen, der Gastronomie, Freizeiteinrichtungen oder der Energie- und Wasserversorgung auch an Feiertagen eingesetzt. Weitere vom Gesetzestext abweichende Ausnahmen können durch (Aufsichts-) Behörden, Betriebsvereinbarungen oder Tarifverträge beschlossen werden. Beim tariflichen Gleitzeitmodell gibt es keine starre Regelung. Vielmehr wird den Beschäftigten ein größerer Spielraum gegeben. Innerhalb einer definierten Spanne haben Sie deshalb die Wahl, wann sie erscheinen bzw. die Arbeit wieder verlassen, um sich anderen Dingen zu widmen. Es wird nur eine Umverteilung vorgenommen. Außerdem soll durch Arbeitszeitkonten mehr Flexibilität für Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer als bei starren Arbeitszeiten erreicht werden. Damit können Phasen der Mehrarbeit durch Phasen der Unterbeschäftigung ausgeglichen werden. Das Arbeitszeitkonto erfasst die Plus- oder Minusstunden des jeweiligen Monats (im Vergleich zur tariflichen Sollarbeitszeit), ermittelt mögliche Differenzen und soll 조성혜_독일의 유연근로시간제와 4차 산업혁명 253 Überstunden durch spätere bezahlte Freistellung ausgleichen. Überstundenarbeit und -bezahlung kann verringert bzw. vermieden werden. Die digitale Technik ist aber inzwischen so weit fortgeschritten, dass sich Produktionsprozesse einschneidend verändern - und damit auch die Arbeitswelt in deutschen Unternehmen. Digitaler Fortschritt macht Arbeitnehmer zeitlich und örtlich flexibel. Sie können selbst komplexe Produktionsabläufe nahezu an jedem Ort der Welt zu jeder Tag- und Nachtzeit steuern. Arbeitsrechtlich führt das zu der Herausforderung, Flexibilität zum Wohle von Unternehmen und Belegschaft zuzulassen, zugleich aber zu verhindern, dass die Grenze zwischen Arbeit und Privatleben übermäßig verwischt. Zumindest über die Arbeitszeit hat sich die deutsche Wirtschaft nun offenbar Gedanken gemacht. Wenn alles immer flexibler werden soll, soll auch das starre Arbeitszeitkorsett weg. Der Acht-Stunden-Tag ist überholt. Es ist behauptet: schon heute gelten die Regelungen im Arbeitszeitgesetz als nicht mehr zeitgemäß; Höchstarbeitszeiten ebenso wie gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Ruhezeiten entsprechen in vielen Branchen nicht mehr dem tatsächlichen Bedarf: Flexibles Arbeiten wird unmöglich, wenn die Ruhezeit verletzt ist, sobald der Arbeitnehmer auch nur eine E-Mail außerhalb der üblichen Arbeitszeit kurz beantwortet oder auch nur liest. Die offenkundige Diskrepanz zwischen Gesetz und Arbeitswirklichkeit wird sich mit der fortschreitenden Vernetzung von Arbeitsabläufen weiter verstärken.

8,700원

8

附錄

노동법이론실무학회

노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 제24호 2018.07 pp.255-275

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

5,700원

 
페이지 저장