Earticle

When the contents of the regulation of employment flexibility and labor contract laws in various forms and in Korea for it on the associated labor and look at the debate on that legislation improvement, Korea flexibility of employment- related legal and other foreign countries according to their employment this characteristic is found to be distinct from the legislation example. Overall, South Korea's legal status don’t correspond with sufficient and flexibility to the need of employment flexibility. In short, law system compared to the needs of the labor market flexibility is fairly inelastic. As a result, truth reality of the workplace has seen a significant discrepancy between the law and regulations, the side effects that have caused the problem to avoid the law has been caused. For example a very strict dispatched labor regulation may cause severe camouflage outsourcing dispute call again. In more strictly define the current laws and regulations, and it is necessary to seal the existing laws and regulations could also try avoiding. If reality is avoided by bypassing the labor law in a direction that causes the instability of employment, looks at how to prevent the adverse effects of such a reality would be created based on the effect that more inelastic and stable employment center. The strengthening of the regulatory judgment assure you think the gap between existing laws and reality will create more significantly, unlike the original intent. Global trend of employment flexibility can not be an exception in the case of Korea. So, it looks positively need a legal system established to reflect the needs of such employment flexibility. Legislation is due to be enough to comply with the regulations. This does not mean that it should be directed to blindly employment flexibility. In a rather labor system, realizing a plan to minimize the anxiety and the risk of workers according to employment flexibility in harmony, and means that it is reasonable to demand for both labor and management finally to observe the relevant laws. Flexibility of employment is a global trend, so we can not be the only exception. Because the variability of the fluctuations are forced to be closely related to the flexibility of employment. Competitive conditions in the businesses is required, it should abandon the elasticity of employment, in the end nothing but a chance to give up the pursuit of profit. Legislation on the future challenges in Korea is determined that more employment flexibility, primarily judges in how laws will fill the gap between the reality. Furthermore, the labor reality demands enough to reflect and setting the normative limits to harmonize the demands of the job security and job flexibility.

The outstanding contradiction between labor supply and demand including the requirement of new industry for flexible employment has stimulate the development of part-time employment. The definition of “part-time employment” in China is mainly defined according to the workinghour other than comparing to full-time employment which is refer to oversea experience. Although the definition itself is simple and efficient, it can be rigid as well as disputable in practice. For the purpose to reduce dispute in the identification of part-time employment from the origin, one effective measure is to narrow down the difference on payment between part-time and full-time through legislation activity. China should complete part-time employment institution on the basis of flexibility of part-time employee, enhancing the protection over the interest of part-time employee, improving quality of part-time employee while keeping the positive effectiveness to employment in order to strengthen the stability and harmony of employment relationship. As to the specific institution, based on principle of equality on payment between part-time and full-time, the authority should utilize flexible laws and legislations to apply various employment form in consideration of China’s reality and practice of labor relationship.

China is based on a socialist state system, which exercises a powerful right to punish violations. There are rules of punishment in case of violation of employer’s, regulator’s, and even worker’s. However, the history of Safety and Health Act in China is not long enough to protect workers. Nevertheless, the advantage of Chinese Occupational Safety and Health Act is that it had accurate and explicit rules of punishment, which are similar to Korean rules. It should be taken into account that employers are more responsible in China than in Korea. The economic activity of employers leads to employment. Therefore, the premise of Occupational Safety and Health Act is made from ‘employment’, which cannot be neglected. Outcome of responsibility should be distinct and discrete. The disadvantage is that the legislative organ has different extents of authority in making each law. Different binding force of laws result to diverse rules of punishment. Recently China is getting considerably more aware of the occupational disease. It’s because industrial disaster victims are increasing due to occupational diseases as types of industries get more diverse. Therefore, occupational diseases should be prevented by accurate rules of law. Chinese Occupational Safety and Health system exercises more powerful right for more strict punishment through distinct and discrete responsibility than Korean system. It still has a limitation that responsibilities are not taken into account until rules are violated.

The U.S dismissal laws are composed of the federal labor laws, regulating labor and employment relations, and the case laws, revising some principles in contract and tort laws in state courts. The federal labor laws include the FLSA, NLRA, OSHA and Title Ⅶ of Civil Rights Act prohibiting employment discriminations in the establishment and termination of employment. In addition, the case laws mean three exceptions to the doctrine of employment at will in contract and tort laws, which have been established by state courts. Above all, the remarkable feature of U.S dismissal laws is that it does not generally require just causes for a legally justified discharge. The laws only premise the principle individually controlling some causes of discharge on the statutes and case laws. The dismissal laws based on the principle logically can not recognize a job security for employees as a legal interest that have to be protected by legal systems. Then, the temp help employment has seriously resulted in job insecurities since 1940s, but the laws don’t regulate it as the matter of wrongful discharge. Furthermore, it is very difficult to establish a legal construction or to enact a legislation, enumerating some jobs for temp help employment and limiting the service period of temp employees in a client’ workplace.

Welfare service user becomes a party for the contract when the administrative measure transfers to contract. This is, so to speak, to consider the welfare service user as a consumer. Such understanding, although it differs significantly to the original intent of previous measures, is now becoming a core form in welfare service usage. Even under the previous administrative measure structures, somewhat different service usage forms are being recognized. For example, self-supports for the homeless under the area of public assistance policy has become to gain the social interests. Under such approach, the service user gets social service from social service supplier and at the same time, it requires to become or forced to become self-supportive. This is a changed form of user type to the ‘ user who are required or forced to become self-supportive’. The consideration point at this stage is that in reality these various type of issues does not occur independently but such factors appear in a complex form within a single issue resolving. These realistic issues arising from the complex request of usage relation should be accepted from the users’ right and human right perspective. However accepting such complex request may comprise difficult issues that could not be overlooked. Naturally, each individual form of usage types often differ from fundamental policy principles. Also, even when it seems that the same principle is applied, the application method differ frequently. For example, in the case when the same principle of ‘self-supportive’ is becoming the issue, there is significant difference in meaning among ‘the consumer user’, ‘the service user who is being requested to become self-supportive’, and ‘the service user who need protection.’ Therefore, to resolve a reality cases with issues from the complex plural user form, the difference arising from the policy principles must also need to be considered. Moreover, the considerate point with the various user relation is that the traditional welfare state perspective regarding state, society and individual relation only does not explain what the diverse user relation confer with the rights and human right issues. This is to say that the right and human right structure under the traditional welfare model where the state only is the service provider does not explain the said problems arising from the diverse right and human right issues. For example, the trend of market orientation now requires the state with the roll of service provider, and the regulation controller to set the rule to control the service supply. Likewise, concerning the poverty arrangement issues, state roll does not satisfy only with the roll of being the subject of service provider regarding self-support, and right protector for the venerable group. Under the premise that the general right and human rights are ultimately related to the structure of individual, state and society, it is clear that such change largely impact the substance of human right and general rights.

Nowadays, job getting is becoming more and more difficult and youth unemployment became universalized. In addition, as an transitional form of employment, unpaid interns have been widely utilized. In the cause of education or training, many employers use unpaid interns. Furthermore these phenomena also appear broadly in the public sector. In many cases, unpaid interns are not treated as employees, because the original purpose of them is education, training, work experience and so on. Above all the most important reason is that they are working unpaid. Because of these reasons, they cannot be treated as employee and even the least protections such as minimum wage, insurance of industrial accidents and so on cannot be often applied. However in the real fields of enterprises there can be seen no difference between education etc and real work. It is almost impossible to distinguish between education etc and real work. Due to the name of unpaid interns, even if no difference to employees, unpaid interns suffer unreasonable treatments. The labor form of unpaid interns is abnormal. This paper shows that unpaid interns can be a same legal status as employees through a reconsideration of the definition of an employee and suggests protection plans of unpaid interns by reviewing the reform bill of the Labor Standards Act and comparing foreign legislations.

Recently, enactment and amendment of laws for in-house subcontract workers and the precedent regarding in-house subcontract as temporary work agency are prevailing in Korea. This causes the difficulty in utilization of in-house subcontract and the increase of the conflicts on the distinction between in-house subcontract and temporary work agency. Therefore, in order to reinforce the industrial competitiveness and to minimize the confusion in industry it is necessary to provide solutions by considering the generous environments for the utilization of in-house subcontract and the stable application of the precedent to the distinction between in-house subcontract and temporary work agency in competing countries.

To align with international labor standards and establish suitable labor-management relations in reality, Korea began allowing multiple labor unions in one workplace in July 2011. This development has resulted in instability from the introduction of many new labor unions, complicated labor-management relations, and system changes. The current single bargaining channel system was designed to maintain and promote order in labor-management relations by introducing the new system while maintaining the existing company-level bargaining practices. While this era of multiple unions has contributed to greater freedom for individual employees in choosing a union they wish to join, it has also resulted in a number of internal labor disputes and unfair labor practices by employers. Introduction of the multiple union system has been considered successful and widely accepted, but there is significant room for improvement due to unforeseen problems and the potential for abuse by employers in the course of determining the bargaining representative union, which is the preparation procedure designed to initiate collective bargaining. The multiple union system has seen frequent disputes regarding whether instances of discrimination between unions and between union members can be considered unfair labor practice. It becomes remarkable to review if there is an improvement to be desired in the unfair labor practice system. The second section (II) will review basic data related to the unfair labor practice system under current labor law in a multiple union era. The third section (III) will classify issues related to unfair labor practice by stage: prior to determining the representative union; in the process of determining the representative union; in the process of collective bargaining; and in the process of implementing the collective agreement. The fourth section (IV) will review issues around handling unfair labor practice such as whether joint representative bargaining or individual bargaining was implemented; whether the duty of fair representation was specifically assigned; whether the responsibility for verification has changed; and whether a union has engaged in unfair labor practice. The last section (V) will consist of a summary and final comments. When handling issues surrounding unfair labor practices, it is necessary to contribute to the security of labor- management relations. These issues are to change or alleviate the responsibility for determination of unfair labor practice. It is necessary to specify the unfair labor practice system in order to be applied limitedly, in an attempt to prevent infringement of individual employee rights to join a union.

The wage paid from employer to worker is one of the most important working conditions for workers as economic resources to maintain basic livelihood. The Labor Standard Act has two types of standard wage called ‘average wage’ and ‘ordinary wage’ in order to ensure and improve basic livelihood of workers. It defines average wage as total amount of salary given during the three previous months before the day that reason to calculate happened divided by the total number of days. Retirement allowance, shutdown allowance, annual vacation allowance and industry injury compensation etc. are calculated by average wage so they are closely related to the protection of working conditions and it is therefore really needed to protect total amount of average wage. In order to guarantee such ‘average wage as living wage’, in article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act, by using concept of ordinary wage, there is a rule that if average wage calculated by legal way is less than ordinary wage, ordinary wage is treated as average wage. In enforcement ordinance article 2, section 1 of the Labor Standard Act, to prevent the wide difference between average wage and ordinary living wage, it excludes certain period of time from calculation period of average wage, so it can prevent unfair loss to workers. Minimum average wage protection clause by ordinary wage is applied only when average wage is larger than ordinary wage. But recently, regular bonus and various benefits are officially accepted as ordinary wage so the range of ordinary wage is extended. Also there are cases that ordinary wage is larger than average wage in the process of shortening legal working hours. So regulatory action for such conditions is needed. When there’s no or little extended hours and no benefits or counted as ordinary wage, if retirement allowance or etc. are given only according to average wage, average wage will always be less than ordinary wage and it also means less retirement allowance will be given. So retirement allowance is needed to be calculated by ordinary wage according to article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act. Because of these reasons, there’s concern about file of class action and it might occur from short-time workers. So we should revise article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act as voluntary law. But at the same time, we should alleviate it by adding ‘case that workers couldn’t provide normal workforce’ enforcement ordinance article 2, section 1 of the Labor Standard Act so it can resolve contradiction of current law system and prevent widely average wage from radical drop so it will be devoted to original function of average wage, ‘guarantee living wages’.

Generally an adult over 19 years old is presumed to make decisions in all areas of his life. People who suffer from a mental illness or handicap, a degenerative disease or some other kind of disability may not be able to make decisions about their financial, legal, medical, or personal affairs. They may be unconscious and unable to decide anything, including where and how to live. They need an adult guardian. On 1. July, 2013 adult guardianship institution is introduced in Korean Civil Code in order to care for the personal and property interests of a person who is incapable of caring for his or her own interests due to mental illness, mental deficiency or developmental disability. A guardianship is a relationship by which one person(the guardian) acts for another(the ward), who is regarded as being incapable of managing his or her own affairs. A guardian has authority to make personal decisions for the ward, such as where and under what conditions the ward will live. A guardian may also decide about his finances, medical and personal care, or both. The family court can appoint a guardian only if the court determines that a person is incapacitated and the services of a guardian are necessary. The court may grant “limited guardianship” allowing the guardian to make only certain decisions. And “special guardianship” is created for the limited purpose of helping the incapacitated person with protective arrangements. There is another form of guardianship which is established by guardianship contract(voluntary guardianship) between the ward and the guardian for the present or probable future incapacity of the ward. The guardianship contract is an agreement whereby the guardian of an elder or incapacitated adult grants guardianship to another person. The agreement grants all of the rights and power of guardianship such as the power to obtain medical services and make decisions regarding the incapacitated adult’s general welfare. The guardianship contract, however, is not appropriate for the people with developmental disabilities insofar as the contract is only concluded by the person in question according to Civil Code. The person with developmental disabilities cannot decide by himself at all whether he needs any guardian or not. Further there is no provisions in Civil Code whether the parents can designate a guardian for surviving disabled children in the event that they become deceased. So it is necessary to establish the provisions which allow the parents to nominate a guardian in the event they pass (Guardianship Clause in a Will).

The recently published report by the World Economic Forum shows that the Republic of Korea has recorded very low scores in all the items of the “Labor Market Efficiency.” In light of the rigidity of dismissal of workers on “ground of business management” under the present Labor Standard Act and the unstableness of the labor market, notwithstanding the benefits of tax reductions or exemptions, etc., the present labor-management related provisions under the Free Economic Zone Act are not sufficient to solicit or induce foreign companies to make investment in the free economic zones.”This article seeks to consider relevant useful provisions of foreign countries' legal systems evaluated to flexibly have coped with the labor-management relations within their free economic zones, and review in depth appropriate methods to improve relevant provisions for domestic laws. In front of the global competitive system, such provisions should conform to not only domestic laws but also the fundamental right to work established by the International Labor Organization or relevant provisions of the effective Free Trade Agreements, and further the provisions should not have any problem or at least should not be cited to be problematic under the international norms. As for general laws, it should be undesirable or unfeasible to dramatically convert the principle of “employment at will” or “no regulation” into the provisions of the Labor Standard Act, considering the current domestic labor conditions. Also introducing the Singapore-typed system of the “Industrial Arbitration Court” is highly likely to run counter to the guarantees of fundamental rights of workers. As for special laws, it seems desirable to establish guidelines in detail under the Free Economic Zones regarding the “Early Retirement Program” or some other mechanisms frequently proposed to business people in practice. In addition, pursuant to the current relevant provisions of the Free Economic Zones Act, it is worth facilitating counselor programs for foreign-invested companies.