Earticle

일본의 노동분쟁의 ADR시스템은 복잡하다고 할 수 있다. 집단적노동분쟁에서 대해서는 노동위원회가 판정적 해결(부당노동행위)과 조정적 해결(알선, 조정, 중재)를 실시한다. 개별적노동분쟁에 대해서는 판정적 해결로써 노동심판이 있고, 조정적 해결로는 관할 노동관계부서의 알선, 조정과 지방노동위원회가 담당하는 알선 등이 있다. 이와 같이 종류는 다양하지만, 문제는 개별노동분쟁해결에서 그들이 연계하여 운용되는 것이 아니기 때문에 이것이 각 제도의 실효성을 저하시키고 있다는 점이다. 또한 한국과 같이 노동위원회에 의한 개별적노동분쟁의 해결이 실시되어, 그 발전이 희망되지만, 이점에 대해서는 명확히 전국 통일적인 법적근거가 부여되지 않기 때문에 한계가 많다.

노동심판제도는 일본의 사법제도개혁의 일환으로 제기되어, 2004년 5월 12일 제정되고 2006년 4월 1일 시행된 노동심판법에 근거를 두고 있다. 동 제도는 신속ㆍ적정ㆍ실효적 해결을 제도취지로 하고 있다. 동제도는 개별적노동관계의 민사분쟁을 대상으로 하는 광의의 재판절차라고 할 수 있다. 노동심판의 대상으로 되는 사건은 ‘노동관계에 관한 사항에 대해서 개개의 노동자와 사업주와의 사이에서 발생한 민사에 관한 분쟁’이다. 동제도는 노동자, 사용자 누구라도 신청은 가능하다. 그리고 신청후 원칙적으로 40일 이내에 제1회 심판기일이 잡히고, 심판기일은 3회이내이다. 그 동안에 조정에 의한 해결이 시도되고, 조정이 성립하지 않는 경우에 심판이 이루어진다. 심판위원회는 법관인 심판관과 노사단체로부터 추천을 받은 2명의 민간인의 심판관으로 구성되며 다수결에 의해 심판이 내려진다. 조정이 성립하면 사건은 종료되지만, 심판으로 가는 경우 심판에 불복한 당사자는 심판선고일로부터 14일이내에 이의신청이 가능하고, 이의신청이 있다면 심판의 효력은 사라지고, 자동적으로 통상의 소송(본소)로 이행하게 되는 구조로 되어 있다. 일본의 노동심판제도에 대해서는 기본적으로는 긍정적 평가가 일반적이라고 할 수 있다. 그렇다고 문제점이 없다고는 할 수 없고, 구체적으로 첫째 해고사건을 포함한 지위확인사건에 있어서 해결의 내용으로 되는 것이 근로자의 원직복직의사에 반하여 대부분 금전적 해결로 끝난다는 점이다. 둘째 임금청구사건에 있어서 명백히 강행법규 위반의 경우에도 사용자의 대응을 배려하여 중간적인 금액의 지불이 명해지는 경우가 있다는 점이다. 이러한 점은 결국 강행법규위반에 대한 기본적인 중요문제가 될 것으로 생각된다. 결론적으로 노동문제의 분쟁이 법원에서 다투어질 기회가 증가되었다는 점, 법원에서 직업법관이외의 민간인이 판정에 관여할 수 있는 제도가 만들어졌다는 점, 그리고 간이신속한 노동분쟁의 해결을 위한 하나의 유력한 수단이 만들어졌다는 점은 적극적으로 평가할 수 있을 것이다. 이후 이 제도가 보호되어야 할 권리가 확보될 수 있는 유력한 방법으로 평가되도록 법관, 심판원, 그리고 노사의 입장에 관한 변호사가 노력해야 할 것으로 생각된다.

Korean relief procedures of unfair dismissal are two. One is judicial procedure by court, and the other is administrative procedure by Labor Board. The latter has been operated from 1989. In 2007, the new relief procedure of unfair dismissal (Labor Standard Law, provisions 28-32), employee’s right of choice monetary compensation (provision 30), compulsions money by labor board (provision 33) were made. This change was connected with the change of cases of judgments of labor board. In 2014, cases of unfair dismissals are 10 fold of the cases of unfair labor practices. Therefore the central task of labor board has been settlement of unfair dismissal. This means that Korean labor movement has been worsen from 1987’s peak, and the labor relations of enterprises has been worsen. There are many criticisms, but the cases have been increased.

Since the IMF foreign exchange crisis of 1998, the Korean labor market has witnessed a disturbing increase in wage polarization and relative inequality. One example in particular is the significant difference in wages between regular and irregular employees. Due to this wage gap, employees and labor organizations have been demanding a change in employment status from irregular to regular employment and abolition of discrimination for irregular employees. This has caused much social conflict, especially as these issues have taken on political, economic, and social ramifications. Currently, the “Discrimination Correction System for Irregular Employees” refers to a system designed to remedy discriminative treatment through the issuance of correction orders by the Labor Relations Commission. These correction orders are meant to address cases where employees engaged in fixed-term, part-time, or dispatched employment (hereinafter referred to as “irregular employees”) have received discriminatory treatment on the basis of their “irregular” employment status when compared to regular employees who are working the same or similar jobs. When the Discrimination Correction System for Irregular Employees was introduced, it was expected that discrimination between regular and irregular employees would decrease as remedy applications were made and the Labor Relations Commission issued correction orders. However, the number of remedy applications filed with the Labor Relations Commission reached a peak in 2008 (a year after introduction of the system) and has fallen to an average of 100 applications in each of the past three years. This decreasing trend does not mean that introduction of the Discrimination Correction System has resulted in a decrease in actual discrimination for irregular employees. As questions have been raised as to whether this system is actually resolving discrimination, it is necessary to review its effectiveness. This thesis paper consists of three parts: The first part (II) deals with the background of introducing the Discrimination Correction System for Irregular Employees; The second part (III) summarizes the procedures of the current Discrimination Correction System for Irregular Employees; and the third part reviews major legal points in terms of improving the effectiveness of the Discrimination Correction System. Even though I have reviewed this system to identify practical uses for the purpose of protecting irregular employees, it is challenging to resolve discrimination against irregular employees in reality. The current Discrimination Correction System resolves discriminatory treatment after its occurrence through individual applications by fixed-term, part-time, or dispatched employees and the correction orders issued by the Labor Relations Commission. The difficulty arises due to the potential disadvantages irregular employees receive from their employers once they apply for correction. This effectively discourages irregular employees from applying, and this after-treatment would be difficult to reduce the discriminations completely. Looking back on the operations of the Discrimination Correction System, it can be generally evaluated as unsatisfactory.

The number of companies in corporate rehabilitation proceedings due to economic depression has been increasing, and the controversial issues of whether those companies can layoff employees in the midst of rehabilitation proceedings arisen, but standard rules on that issue hasn't been organized yet. This issue, like in Korea, has not been settled in Japan either. Recently the case of JAL's laying off its employees during the reorganization proceedings that will influence similar court case in Korean. Accordingly, the objective of this research is to help interpret the law of Korea by studying the court's ruling and interpretations of conditions of company's laying off in reorganizing proceedings. Followings are: first, reviewing the features of laying off in terms of Corporate Reorganization Act in Japan, second, reviewing the theories and legal precedents, lastly reviewing what suggestions we can get from those studies. First, although the regulations regarding laying off has been stipulated in Civil Law, not in Labor Law, they established “the theory of abuse of rights.” nullifying the legal force in Civil Law. Later, it influenced the Labor Standard Act in 2003 when it was amended, and became stipulated in the Labor Contract Act when it enacted in 2007. Second, the problem arises regarding what law can be applied when the company in reorganizing proceedings has to layoff employees; Labor Contract Act or regulations in Corporate Reorganization Act. Some support the former while majority support the latter. Third, in case that we take layoff theory based on Labor Contract Act, the problem also arises whether we should take the same measures as normal corporate or take flexible measures. The general consensus on this issue is taking the latter. Fourth, in Japan, the companies in reorganizing proceedings make every effort to avoid redundancy dismissal; a personnel reshuffle, transferring to affiliates, voluntary retirement, pay cut, suspending pay bonus, pay cut for executives, decrease the number of executive officers etc. In recent, supporting reemployment for laid-off workers are being considered seriously. Fifth, there are controversies over the standard of designating the workers who are to be laid off; age and disease. Lastly, proceedings of agreement with labor union is considered seriously. General theory is that it requires serious effort for the proceedings of agreement with labor union, but for reorganizing proceedings, some argue that they should take flexible measures.

Many regulations to protect workers’ claims of wage are said to be established in terms of social policy to guarantee construction workers’ minimum standards of living, based on that Korea’s construction sites are composed layered and layered. But in spite of many kinds of institutional strategy, workers’ claims of wage are very much often not protected due to absence or insufficiency of regulation so that systematic complement is essential now. The most controversial issue in construction sites’ structure of employment is whether personal separate contractor called ‘Oyaji’ is worker or not. Oyaji is not a construction business operator on Construction Business Act so that he cannot participate as a subcontractor. In addition, he is not likely to be seen as a business owner because he just provides labor with a few workers. Actually, many evils such as delay in payment of wages and so on are attending Oyaji. Nevertheless, approving Oyaji as a business owner can incapacitate the applicable rules by admitting illegal subcontractors, which results in turning away from protecting workers. So it is essential to make it clear on the law that who is not a construction business operator on Construction Business Act cannot be a business owner. And it is proper that in case Oyaji employs and instructs workers within his own responsibility and takes profit of remaining at which workers’ wage is deducted, Oyaji is regarded as a user(who works for a owner) and given a double status as a worker and a user. If things come to this stage, a legal business owner on Construction Business Act is given a user’s status which makes him a wage payment obligator so that harmful consequences are corrected. In addition, problems about regulating joint liability on wage payment questions about construction workers’ eligibility to receive substitute payment and can be solved too so that workers can be protected effectively. About prohibition of seizure on cost of construction- the equivalent of wages-, it should be made clear that even though cost of construction is completely seized, workers’ wage cannot be seized. And it should be the same case as upper constructor or launcher’s subcontract cost. To sum up, workers’ claim of wage is often not protected in spite of many regulations for worker protection. So, to protect their claims of wage which is the main source of living, the regulations should be supplemented to protect them effectively in consideration of social policy.

Recently, discussion of the normal wages are changing legislation theory. On this chance I wanted to make a opportunity to change the system and method of payment of wages complex. However, the reality was different. Because discussion of wage law system Improvements became a place of negotiation to carry through the interests of both labor and management. Purpose of the improvement of legislation originally to simplify the wage system has become colorless. It's a result of discussions on the improvement of the wage system is overlooked that value-neutral. Legislation theory of normal wage system is included a variety of issues. Priority, suggesting to delete the concept of normal wage claim is difficult to agree. Because normal wage has a unique functional and a conceptual significance. Second, there was trying to reduce artificially the four elements of ordinary wages, but this is also difficult to accept. Because four elements of ordinary wages are the basic essentials if concept of normal wage is value valuation of encyclopedic ordinary work. However, the proposal to simplify the meaning of fixed period and dimensions to improve the clarity is possible to take into account legislation on the theory. Third, there is a need to acknowledge the validity of the normal wage agreement between labor and management. The amount of wages is based on the agreement of labor and management basically, it is because not as prescribed by law. Fourth, to define centrally premium rate of normal wages must be improved. The right to decide the upper limit and lower limit, in which, it is to assume that labor and management requirements. And the life of the wage system has made, doing so leads to their advantage the amount of wages, but the respective roles of labor and management. Remains open room for reasonable judgment between labor and management, further, it is necessary not to be used to churning conflict with only a range of concepts normal wage.

In practice of industrial relation, wages are not necessarily determined and given responding to quantity and quality of labor. So, labor standard law uses notions of ordinary wages and average wages to distinguish between living wages for guaranteeing laborers’s living and standard wages for calculating payment. Based on the theory of oneness wage characteristics that the supreme court adopted, Wages mean money that employers are obliged to pay continually and periodically to laborers for the price of work they have in terms of collective agreement, employment rules, and labor contract, labor practice no matter what title. Among these wages, ordinary wages are proactive wages which are supposed to be given among total wages, and, extra wages, in principle, are not part of ordinary wages. Ordinary wages are price for work and should be fixed which stands for periodicity and uniformity. My opinion conforms to the supreme court decision about ordinary wages in 2013 that ordinary wages need to be fixed and confirmed, not be flexible. I suggest that the legislation for ordinary wages system be legislated to enhance legal clarity, stability, and hereafter suitability. Concerning diversity of determining and building work environment including wages in each business ground, I have a clear opinion that it is necessary to decide wages flexibly in accordance with laborers by having negotiation units autonomously judge and decide rather than making standardized decision and it should be within the fundamental boundaries of law.

December 18, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled the problem for the concept and scope of the normal wage which has been controversial for ordinary wage. It is thought to be effective to reduce the clutter of the on-site labor. But, the Supreme Court mentioned “The labor- management agreement for the range of normal wage is no effect to both parties to legal actions because of violations of mandatory rules. But the workers claims for additional wage may be not allowed in accordance with the principle of good faith.”On the one hand, I was surprised about that limits the legal rights of workers by applying the principle of good faith in a legal action for violation of mandatory rules. On the other hand, That surprised me even more is to apply the principle of good faith called the general provisions to limits of the rights of workers in the labor law area that modified civil law principles. Meanwhile, in the labor area, the judgment applied the principle of good faith exist but, I thought it would always be ‘exceptional’. But, I can only think that it can be applied at any time and any situation if there exists situational specificity. Personally, I think it logical and reasonable that the court allowed to claims of additional benefits for workers because he labor-management agreement for the range of normal wage is no effect to both parties to legal actions. I think that the court need to wait for legislative action in Congress before making a decision.

Supreme court decided that business suspension allowance is a kind of wage October 11. 2013 before the decision of Supreme court December 18.2013 〔Severance pay〕. I think that business suspension allowance is not a kind of wage. So I want to analyze the former decision of Supreme Court was wrong. I tried to prove business suspension allowance is the nature of employer’s assistance for employee because employee did not provide his own’s labor to the employer, so business suspension allowance the employee was given did not relate to the provision of employee’s labor. If the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013, continue in effect, this will greatly have affection to judge whether many kinds of allowance are wage or not, for decision of Supreme court December 18. 2013 decided that if the employee continuously and periodically receive a kind of allowance, this has the nature of wage without consideration about the name of allowance. We will guess that the contribution of social security paid for the employee by the employer also has the nature of wage, for the employer continuously and periodically pays it for the employee and the contribution of social security has the nature of employer’s assistance like business suspension allowance. To study this view more, I did the nature of social insurance premium in France and compared social insurance premium in Korea with that in France. In France social insurance premium dose not have the nature of wage like in Korea and business suspension allowance has the nature of employee’s damage. I think that the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013 is the exceptional judgement based on the consideration of special situation for the protection of employee with ignoring the theory of wage.

Occupational Safety and Health Act article 26 is about Suspension of Work. It defines that if there is an imminent danger, the employer shall suspend the operations, evacuate from workplace, and he/she shall report it without delay to the immediate superior officer, who shall take appropriate measures to address the situation. And if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there exists any imminent danger, the employer shall not dismiss or give other unfavorable treatments to workers who have suspended work and taken shelter pursuant to paragraph because they have done so. However, unclear range and definition of “imminent danger” has caused a controversy because it is hard for workers themselves to judge whether a situation is danger or not. “Imminent danger” should be defined clearly in enforcement ordinances and enforcement regulations. From results of this research, we found that it is better to replace “imminent danger” with “when you recognize that ‘industrial accident’ seems to happen” in article 26 of OSHA. Because more realistic mean may help to use ‘the right of work suspension’ for workers. Also it is necessary to make a institute which can judge whether the right of work suspension was exercised justly or not. And if manuals for work suspension are made, these will helpful for workers to use ‘the right of work suspension’ easily in workplace.

Industrial Safety and Health Law in Korea regulates Chemicals used in workplace with the purpose of preventing workers from exposure to hazard and risk materials. Chemicals are a vital part of our daily life. A ‘hazard’ is something that in itself may cause harm or injury. A ‘risk’ concept means the likelihood that a hazard will cause a specific harm or injury to persons or damage to property. ‘Risk assessment’ is a systematic approach to assessing the potential health risks associated with exposure to known or potentially toxic agents. Risk assessments can be used in a variety of contexts, including evaluating exposure to chemicals associated with consumer products, occupational settings, or specific contaminated sites. Risk Assessment is the process of identifying safety and health hazards associated with work, assessing the level of risks involved, and prioritizing measures to control the hazards and reduce th risk in clauses 41a of the Industrial Health and Safety Act. Every employer principal must conduct a risk assessment in relation to the safety and health hazards associated with any routine and non-routine work carried on at the workplace. Risk Assessment covers the general duty of care and the more specific duties(Risk Management Duty)in the Industrial Health and Safety Act. As a result employers should 1. eliminate chemical risks, 2. remove the hazardous chemical or substitute a less hazardous substance, 3. enclose or isolate the hazardous chemical process through the use of remote and enclosed handling techniques etc.

This article is aimed at situation where contractors use sub-contractors and their employees. It tries to analyze the general health and safety responsibilities of contracting company to protect sub-contractors’ employees. These responsibilities, if not properly managed, can lead to events that could prove costly to all parties. This article mainly focuses on the Korean health and safety legislations and case studies showing what can happen when things go wrong. As well as the immediate effects, further consequences can arise from delays to the work itself and claims for damages. Even though there are a few protective clauses for employees working in the contractors’ premises in legislations, some desirable suggestions may be presented to conduct safety and health policies more effectively mentioned below;First, the health and safety duties of contracting company should be strengthened more wider than the status quo through the wider definition of employer to regulate contracting out reasonably. Second, courts should not broaden immunity of corporations when they interpret and apply the Penalty Provisions in Health and Safety at Work Act. Last, contracting company’s duty of care for the contractors’ employees in damage claims should be constructed based on the contractual liability as well as torts.

Not every worker qualifies for benefits once they become unemployed. Many unemployed workers are not receiving benefits. This is particularly true of women. The fact that many women are not eligible for unemployment benefits, due to outdated monetary eligibility requirements such as wage and hour requirements and restrictions placed on allowable reasons for job loss, is troublesome. This article discusses the reasons why women receiving unemployment insurance at lower rates than men and the importance of enabling more women to become eligible. This article reviews and evaluates provisions made into law under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a step in the right direction towards unemployment benefit reform in other countries including Korea.

It has been 3 years since the multiple unions system was enforced. On the contrary, we made sure that the actual number of the unions that has been newly established has increased rapidly, but a group rate did not almost increase. Even though these symptoms increased, the number of new established unions that comes from many lateral changes the union members who seceded from the existing union, established new unions or became members of other unions. The multiple unions system has some merits that lead to the existing union to be changed positively, but on the other hand it has some demerits such as opposing and clash between unions. In conclusion, the important is, the government's positive incentives in order that nonunion workers establish new unions or become in which members of new unions. That fills the purpose of the multiple unions system that the worker's right of organization is guaranteed and the union's power of combination is increased. In other words, by means of demanding they be granted the three basic labor rights - to organize, bargain collectively and strike, result from Constitution, article 33 (1) and the right of establishing unions and choosing unions result from article 5 in the Labor Union and Labor Relations Coordination Act, the government try to find possible measures to stimulate the multiple unions system for the purpose of the multiple unions system.

Although Korea practices the state pension system, the age for state pension has been heightened by decrease in income replacement rate that took place during the revision to resolve the insecurity of pension finance. In 2012, revision on“Prohibition of Discrimination on Age in Employment and Employment Promotion for the Aged Act (Employment Promotion for the Aged Act)”stipulated 60 as the retirement age, yet it is inevitable for many elderly people to experience blank in income. In general, almost every major developed countries tend to heighten the age for receiving state pension, search for the way to promote employment of the aged and connect the retirement age with the age qualified for receiving pension, to resolve insecurity of pension finance. However, it is hard to say that such law and policy that intentionally connects the retirement from the labor market with the age of receiving state pension exists in Korea. Japan connected the end of employment with supply of pension through the 2012 revision on ｢Aged Employment Promotion Law｣. Initiated from 2013, the purpose of Japan's Aged Employment Promotion Law is to resolve the blank in income from the inclined age for pension supply, poverty problem and job insecurity that the aged experience due to aging. This implies that considering the speed of aging in Korea, we should also establish legal environment that secures people to work until 65, as Japan did through the introduction of retirement age expansion system. However, legalizing the expansion of retiring age to 65 like Japan might impose a burden on employers by decreasing the competitiveness of firms and generating generation gap surrounding young people and jobs. Unlike Japan, in Korea, the stipulated retiring age written on group agreements or employment rules is in many cases not kept, and introduction of ‘65 retiring age system’ might not work as effectively as it did in Japan. Involuntary retirement in early period such as voluntary resignation and resign from advice, and frequent reconstruction in firms are generalized in Korea, and job insecurity is continuing. Under such situation, the effect of the ‘legalization’ of 60 as an retiring age would be limited. Especially in current status where irrational seniority-based wage system that deepens the inconsistency between income and productivity is kept, the effect would be minimal. To resolve such problem, strengthened link between the state pension law and Employment Promotion for the Aged Act is required. For stable income security for the aged, the retiring age should be expanded sequently from 61 to 65 based on the age for pension after the retiring age of 60, as in case of Japan. Also, on the one hand, we should support citizens by establishing diverse grants or funds through current employment stabilization project and introducing salary peak system. On the other hand, we should establish wage subsidy which is directly paid to the working elderly, and also establish pension for promotion of employment for the aged on the state pension law. Also, in case of incumbent elderly employees, stipulating the retiring age should be obliged. At the same time, the existent seniority-based wage system should be revised into the wage system that reflects productivity, and diverse policies reconstructing labor supply system to promote employment should be established, to help settling the legalization of practical retiring age system. In conclusion, Korea should not burden the next generation by adopting the system of Japan and managing public pension based on generational support, but should aim for “young, old balance” that does not assumes generational inequality.

The author tries to analyze the impact of Japanese labor law on Korean labor law in the individual labor relations law. It is no doubt that the Japanese law has impacted on the Korean law in the statutes, case law and labor administration etc. An author thinks that the most main causes of the impact are because the Korean labor laws and the circumstances of the labor market etc. are very similar to those of the Japanese. Accordingly an author has to analyze many contents concerned to see all impacts above. An author focuses, however, on the some points below. Conclusions are as follows:First, the Japanese law with respect to the definition of an employee impact on the Korean law. The Supreme Court of Korea has, however, extended the definition, so some groups of workers became to be protected by the Labor Standards Act. Second, an employer is not able to order its employee to make a contract of employment with another employer without the employee’s individual consent in principle. The consent includes advanced comprehensive consent through rules in workplace, this like theory in Japan impacted on the Korean law. Accordingly to the Supreme Court of Korea, however, where an employer has very close relations with another employer, simultaneously the practice of the transfer has been between them, that is to say between a parent company and a subsidiary company, an employer can also order its employee to make the contract with the another employer without its employee’s individual consent. Third, a legal nature of the tentative decision to hire and a standard of justification of the transfer in Japan impact also on the Korean law each other. The former is called ‘a contract of employment that a right to terminate the contract is reserved to an employer’, the latter is a fair comparison of interests between an employer’s business necessity for the transfer and its employee’s disadvantage by the transfer. Forth, a right to work by an employee against it employer is generally not recognized, but a duty of care for safety of an employer against its employee is interpreted to be included in an employment contract. Furthermore, some wages are especially protected by special statutes in Japan. These legal theories impact on the Korean law. Fifth, a right to expecting renew in the fixed-term employment contract in Japan impacts on the Korean law, but now a special statute for protecting an employee under a fixed-term employment contract is enacted in Korea. Sixth, the Supreme Court of Japan held that an employer should satisfy four requirements to do a mass dismissal. The four requirements are an urgent business necessity, an obligation of effort to avoid the dismissal, a faithful negotiation with a majority union or a representative of the employees, and finally the dismissal by fair standards. These principles of case law in Japan impacted on the Korean case law, later the Labor Standards Act Section 24 in Korea provides these four requirements, and some another procedures are added to the requirements. Seventh, in case of a business transfer, a transferee succeeded to an employment contract with a transferor where an employee concerned does not oppose to the succession of the employment contract in Japan. This standard impacts on the Korean law. In case of a business division, a problem of the succession of the employment contract is resolved by a special statute in Japan, but it is equivalent to the problem of the succession in the business transfer in Korea. Eighth, where an employer has a reasonable cause in changing a rule disadvantageously, the employer is able to change the rule effectively in Japan. The Labor Standards Act Section 94 in Korea provides explicitly that an employer has to get an agreement of a majority union or a majority of the employees to change the rule disadvantageously. The Supreme Court of Korea held, nevertheless, that where an employer has the reasonable cause above, the employer is effectively able to change the rule, and the rule applies to all employees. Finally, an author introduced dispute resolution systems of the individual labor relations. There are many differences between the Japanese system and the Korean system. Of course a complaint can sue his or her dispute to the Court in both countries. In case of ADR system, however, the Labor Tribunal deals with disputes arising from the individual labor relations in Japan, and the Labor Commission handles the disputes in Korea. Furthermore, the Commission covers also discrimination cases related to the fixed-term worker, part-timer, and a dispatched worker.

The Korean Statutes on Collective Labor Relations were enacted more than 60 years ago. Yet, the development on those laws have been significantly influenced by the relevant Japanese laws, as evidenced by the fact that one cannot meaningfully discuss the development of the Korean laws without discussing relevant Japanese statutes and the Japanese cases thereto. There has been very little discussion as to why the Korean system has been deeply influenced by the Japanese laws. However, it can be assumed that Korea did not have a lot of resistance in incorporating and adopting Japanese theories and cases, for the reasons that: (1) the basic contents of the laws are very similar between the two countries; (2) that both countries recognize the three labor rights as constitutional rights; and (3) that labor unions are organized per business in both countries. The Korean system on collective labor relations has shown a trend to move beyond the Japanese influence, while keeping the basic structure from the enactment, with significant changes such as the unification of negotiation channel pursuant to one business one negotiation principle. Despite this recent trend, the comparative analysis on the Japanese and the Korean systems is still important, as illustrated by following points. The case law theory on collective agreement has been the foundation for Korean laws on collective labor relations. Moreover, in case of multiple unions, the Japanese case law theory on the duty of neutrality to be imposed on employers has been referenced and discussed in cases involving discrimination against one union in Korea.

This research aims at discovering the implications of the Japanese working hour system for white-collar workers on Korean society, since Japanese employment circumstances and labor legislations are similar to Korean. This system refers to the flexible working hours or the discretionary labor system under the Japanese working hour system, which allows for a better understanding of how to operate and manage the white-collar workers’ working hours. The reasons why Japanese society has had the need for a discretionary labor system include the importance of efficiently managing white-collar worker’s working hours because of the changes to industrial structure and the shift to tertiary industries; and second, the diversification of employment patterns due to an aging society and a declining birthrate, and the changes of female worker’s sense of value towards work. In 2005, the Japanese business communities insisted on introducing a “white-collar exemption”, that is to ease or exempt the regulation of working hours for white-collar workers. While the system of white-collar exemption failed to legislate due to the lack of social interest and backlash from labor unions, society now understands that it is necessary to introduce a new working hour system for the proper management of the current white-collar worker’s working hours. Many pros and cons were presented concerning the introduction of white-collar exemption in Japan. Critics argued that the system would lead to legalizing overtime work without pay, aggravate over working, and deteriorate the mental and physical health condition of workers. On the other hand, supporters maintained that the treatment towards white- collar workers would establish optimum levels of work by trying to induce superior workers, offer higher productivity, and better work-life-balance would also be realized. The Japanese exemption system ensures the security of the white-collar worker’s holidays and healthcare checks. These are the distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese system that differ from the white-collar exemption in the US. The implications of the Japanese white-collar exemption and its discussion in regard to Korean society are as follows: first, it is imperative to improve productivity through the efficient management of working hours in order to create employment and to enhance the workers’ quality of life by lessening their working hours. Second, Korean society needs to introduce the discretionary labor system because of the diversity of the types of business within the nation. One of the most important points is, however, to offer considerations regarding the worker’s rights in relation to holidays and health conditions like the Japanese system does. Lastly, to make white-collar working hours more flexible, in addition to the importance of a legislation approach, it is regarded as a prerequisite in order to change the way that worker’s think about their working hours, achieving a better work-life-balance.

Fixed-term contract of employment, which generally refers to the contractual relationship between an employee and an employer that lasts for a specified period, is seen by many employers as a convenient alternative to permanent contracts of employment which can only be terminated under reasonable grounds. Generally, a fixed-term contract ends on an agreed date. Once the time period ends, the contract is automatically terminated and the employer need not give any notice of termination. The period of such a contract may range from a matter of months up to a period of a year or more. However, a fixed-term contract can also involve a specified-purpose and so may not end on a specific date. Rather, it is agreed that the contract will finish when a particular stated task is completed. After this, if the employer wishes to renew the employee’s contract, it must be an open-ended contract unless there are objective grounds justifying the renewal of the contract for a fixed term only. The legitimacy of fixed-term contracts is regulated strictly by the Protection Act of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employee (the Fixed-Term Act). The Fixed-Term Act determines whether or not the fixing of a deadline is justified on objective grounds. According the Fixed-Term Act fixed-term contracts may not last longer than 2 years unless there are objective reasons such as completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event. Acceptable justifications for fixed-term contracts are listed in the Act. The most common reasons for fixing a term of employment are when:The period of employment is to complete a specific task. The employee is employed to cover an absent permanent employee. The period of employment is to provide a young person with education or work experience. The conclusion of fixed-term contracts with older employees. The employee is professional with specific knowledge or technology. The period of employment is to provide an unemployed person with job in accordance with government measures against unemployment or welfare policy etc. The Fixed-Term Act tries to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts of employment, the so-called “chain contracts,” by stating that unless there are objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts, fixed-term contracts cannot be renewed. If fixed-term contracts last longer than 2 years without objective reasons, it shall be regarded as an open-ended contract. Before the legislation of the Fixed-Term Act it is generally believed that after a fixed term contract is rolled over or renewed, the employee may develop a right to expect that the employer will continue to renew the contract. The number of times that a fixed term contract of employment has been rolled over may contribute towards an expectation of another similar contract after the natural expiry of the last contract. The supreme Court found that employees had established a reasonable expectation, and consequently that then dismissal was deemed to be unfair in circumstances in which there were repeated renewals of the contract. The question is that if this principle of the right of expectation of renewal of fixed-term contracts is still available for the case of justifications for fixed-term contracts according to the Fixed-Term Contract. The recent decision of the Supreme Court reviewed the question whether a fixed-term contract of researcher with doctor degree can be renewed according the rules of employment in which a fixed-term contract cannot be renewed in case of the lack of job performance. The Court found that the employers’ decision not to renew a fixed term contract is unfair. There had been repeated renewals over a 5 year period. The work was available for the employee. He had satisfied a reasonable expectation of renewal. The principle: work was available for the employee to do, and the employee could do it. It is concerned that the employer would refuse the renewal of a fixed- term contracts in order to avoid the right of expectation of renewal of fixed-term contracts. It should be remembered that the strict protection rules tend to lead adverse effect. It is sort of a double edged sword but mostly proved inhibitive when it came to the employer’s decision to renew the contract.

Since 1960, formulated a national economic development plan, South Korea has made substantial progress in industrialization, and for this reason, it was necessary to ensure early skilled technicians. With reference to the national qualification system technology Germany, and Japan, the government at the time, introduced a national technical qualification system to another ministry. As a result, it became the basis for the economic growth of Japan's current so as to supply in a timely manner trained technician needed for industrialization. Established the “National technical qualification Law” in 1973, it is integrated into the system of a single national technical qualification is run each ministries another, by improving continuously thereafter, the government, the national technical qualification system of today positioned. In parallel with the establishment of “national technical qualification process”, looking at the national technology qualification system, it can be big, it is divided into consignment expander role and worth additional private qualification introductory period, integrated operation machine, and national certification. As a system Koreans 4 million people a year are staring, and improve proficiency and skill development of workers, national technical qualifications, plays a role as an important infrastructure of human resources of the country. In the future, as can be performed continuously these roles, it must be operated systematically, “National Technical qualification process”.

Exceptions that employers can utilize external workforce without employment relationship have been expanded. However the general rule of prohibition of labor supply service could collapse if we wouldn't recognize that worker dispatch is an exception. Nearly 37 percent of positions at “big” companies are filled with non- permanent workers, the labor ministry said Wednesday in its first disclosure of employment conditions at companies with more than 300 people on the payroll.Non-permanent members consist of workers dispatched from manpower supply agencies, temporary workers and home workers, it said. Many critics claim there are many things to be done to make the policy more effective. The biggest shortcoming, they point out, is the absence of rules to punish companies that refuse to report or make it erroneously. It is regulated a doctrine of intermediary exploitation in Labor Standard Act, is exceptionally allow Labor Supply Business in Employment Security Act, and is regulated Protection of Workers in Act on the Protection, Etc. of Temporary Agency Workers(is called ‘Dispatched Work Act’). Therefore, if the InfraSubcontract is understood the Dispatch of Workers it is applied the Dispatched Work Act. It is necessary to confirm the InfraSubcontract either we apply to Subcontract or Dispatched Work Act. The task of labor law confirmed in the concept of employee must perform a role in making a distinction among subcontract, dispatch and direct labor relations. If a subcontract has only external form and turn out to be disguised that the worker followed the contractor's order, the contractor must take responsibility as employer of the subcontractor's worker.