Earticle

Labor reforms change the reality of past-oriented labor relations into future-oriented ones. Even though this change was achieved through the revision and disposal of the laws and regulations, it can be fallen into an error to simplify the fact that the guidelines which do not have legal binding and do not exclude the conflict possibility of precedents can change that. The dismissal system shall present the standard of judgment in accord with a new human resources management focusing on the result of job performance, the dismissal for economic reasons shall also complement the concrete detailed criteria and prevent unreasonable damages resulting from companies and employees, and the method of remedy of unfair dismissals shall improve the direction to increase effectiveness. It shall be the purpose of labor reforms to extend the consensus of labor-management on whether or not reforms are achieved in any direction and to prepare the effective improvement plan through presenting a concrete reform agenda. If it is a purpose to resolve the uncertainty of existing related provisions of dismissals and improve the loophole of legal system, it is a meaning of institutional improvement and can secure the balance point of interests between labor-management that the main part of reconstructing the dismissal system shall include all of the substantial reasons, dismissal procedures, and loopholes of remedy system of unfair dismissals. In addition, Labor reforms shall be able to respond Labor market flexicurity reasonably through seeking the improvement plan on the viewpoint to compromise the labor market flexibility and employment security of employees with individual issues surrounding the dismissal system considered in labor reality of Korea. What is emphasized in the last is that one should improve individual issues reasonably that surround the dismissal system considered in labor reality of Korea and then organize the comprehensive and systematic modernized dismissal system in order to respond the normality of labor market well.

Labor reforms change the reality of past-oriented labor relations into future-oriented ones. Even though this change was achieved through the revision and disposal of the laws and regulations, it can be fallen into an error to simplify the fact that the guidelines which do not have legal binding and do not exclude the conflict possibility of precedents can change that. The dismissal system shall present the standard of judgment in accord with a new human resources management focusing on the result of job performance, the dismissal for economic reasons shall also complement the concrete detailed criteria and prevent unreasonable damages resulting from companies and employees, and the method of remedy of unfair dismissals shall improve the direction to increase effectiveness. It shall be the purpose of labor reforms to extend the consensus of labor-management on whether or not reforms are achieved in any direction and to prepare the effective improvement plan through presenting a concrete reform agenda. If it is a purpose to resolve the uncertainty of existing related provisions of dismissals and improve the loophole of legal system, it is a meaning of institutional improvement and can secure the balance point of interests between labor-management that the main part of reconstructing the dismissal system shall include all of the substantial reasons, dismissal procedures, and loopholes of remedy system of unfair dismissals. In addition, Labor reforms shall be able to respond Labor market flexicurity reasonably through seeking the improvement plan on the viewpoint to compromise the labor market flexibility and employment security of employees with individual issues surrounding the dismissal system considered in labor reality of Korea. What is emphasized in the last is that one should improve individual issues reasonably that surround the dismissal system considered in labor reality of Korea and then organize the comprehensive and systematic modernized dismissal system in order to respond the normality of labor market well.

As the unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate become more serious due to the economic crisis, many countries are seem to revise the labor law including Korea. Italy also recently amended its labor law with the same reason. The mid-left Renzi government, which was established in Feb. 2014, promoted structural reforms to address the Italian economic crisis. At the same time, the government amended to ease the regulations on dismissal. This article examines the methods and procedures of the dismissal relief, which was a key issue in the amendment of the Italian labor law. Before that, I would like to introduce the basis content and characteristics of the Italy's dismissal system first in order to help understanding the key issue. Then examine the dismissal relief system.

This study has been conducted with the purposes of introducing the contents and the status of the Labor Adjudication System in Japan, which has been in effect for more than 10 years, and of evaluating the possible lessons from the Japanese system for Korea, by analyzing several issues currently debated under the Japanese system. The Japanese Labor Adjudication System refers to the system implemented under the Labor Adjudication Act, enacted April 1, 2006, with the purpose of speedy and fair adjudication of individual labor disputes by the court. This system has been implemented and put into use very fast, and been praised by Japanese practitioners and parties to labor issues as one of the most successful systems created by the legal system reform efforts. However, despite theses extremely positive reviews in Japan, it is still true that this system has its fair share of problems. Specifically, although this is a system introduced as an adjudication system by the court, there has been a tendency to resolve the disputes through monetary awards, rather than through declaration of rights and obligations based on the law, while emphasizing that this is a system designed to provide flexible solutions on a case by case basis. These so-called flexible solutions that are not based on legal concepts, the author believes, are somewhat contrary to the notion of law as justice, especially in cases of wrongful termination where there is a close connection to the worker’s life. In Korea, there have been some efforts to introduce the European style labor court as a vehicle to resolve individual disputes. As such, Korea should pay a close attention to these problems identified in this paper.

The past decade has witnessed a remarkable growth in the legal system of the Industrial Injury Insurance both in scope and in depth in China. Especially the Social Insurance Law and the new Industrial Injury Regulation has marked an important development of the legal system of Industrial Injury Insurance in China. This paper is aiming to introduce the contents of the Industrial Injury Insurance and Its' Improvement Measures in China--such as the development, operation and application of the industrial insurance, insurance beneficiaries, industrial injury certification, industrial insurance benefits--such as medical care benefit, wage replacement benefit, disability benefit, nursing benefit, survivors benefit, funeral expenses, vocational rehabilitation benefit--, etc. However the whole research in China is still relatively poor, needing further efforts in many aspects. Lastly speaking, I wish that this paper would contribute to understand the legal system of the Industrial Injury Insurance in China.

The legal principle of a general succession following the principle succession theory is right when it comes to the employment succession in Business transfer. These days, this legal principle of a general succession is fully established by theories and cases. In the case of all transfer of the business, it gives the same legal effects as merger. On the other hand, In the case of some transfer of the business, it is necessary for employees to allow the refusal right to the succession. It is allowed to the employees' refusal right to the succession only in order to retire in transferring company. Because the employees' refusal right to the succession is not allowed in case to work continuatively in transferring company. It is able to receive a discharge allowance or retirement in transferring company and then for entering the company by retirement in transferring company. Then again, it is the matter to which range the object of valuation is allowed when transferring company including employees that refuse the succession to select employees dismissed by operational reasons. In my opinion, in case transferring company have to select employees dismissed by operational reasons, we should select that persons in employees dismissed by operational reasons.

Recently, the side effects of using smart devices at work have been increasing. Amid rising concerns on the issue, the concept of a “right to disconnect” has emerged. It is a right to not respond to business e-mails, telephones, or messages etc. after work. This is based on (i) the health and wellbeing of workers, (ii) the work-life balance, and (iii) improvement of operational efficiency. In Korea, a congressman Shin, Kyung Min of the Minjoo Party of Korea proposed a bill (Number 400), so-called the “KakaoTalk Prohibition Act after Work”, which bans firms from issuing orders through SNS after work. In addition, the Seoul Metropolitan Government also proposed an ordinance regarding a “right to disconnect.” Although a lot of people gave positive feedbacks, some people cast a doubt on the proposal. Especially, it is difficult to make a legal judgment whether works ordered through smart devices are subject to the regular working hours. Besides, it is necessary to review whether it can be applied to companies in reality. Another problem is that it can be an excessive intervention in management or restraint upon management entities. Additionally, it is almost impossible to measure the exact working hours given the nature of works using smart devices. Discussions on a “right to disconnect” must begin. At the same time, we need to proceed the structure of establishing the infrastructure required to introduce it. Consequently, it is important to carry out balanced polices between taking advantage of smart work and protecting employees' privacy.

Das Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz (AÜG) in Detschland regelt die Arbeitnehmerüberlassung(Zeitarbeit oder Leiharbeit). Das Bundeskabinett hat Mitte 2016 einen Gesetzesentwurf beschlossen, der unlautere Praktiken in der Zeitarbeit erschweren soll. Der Bundestag und der Bundesrat haben diesen Gesetzesentwurf verabschieden, damit die Änderungen 1. April 2017 in Kraft treten. Die wesentlichen Punkte des Gesetzesentwurfs sind: Leiharbeiter sollen künftig nur noch bis zu einer Überlassungshöchstdauer von 18 Monaten beim Entleiher eingesetzt werden können. Allerdings können in einem Tarifvertrag oder einer Betriebsvereinbarung abweichende Regelung getroffen werden. Leiharbeiter sollen künftig nach neun Monaten hinsichtlich des Arbeitsentgelts mit den Stammarbeitern gleichgestellt werden(Equal Pay). Allerdings sind auch hier Abweichungen möglich, wenn durch Tarifvertrag sichergestellt ist, dass Leiharbeiter innerhalb von 15 Einsatzmonaten (nicht Überlassungsmonate!) stufenweise das Arbeitsentgelt der Stammbelegschaft erreichen. Leiharbeiter dürfen zukünftig zwingend nicht mehr als Streikbrecher eingesetzt werden. Durch die Änderung im AÜG soll der Einsatz von Leiharbeitern als Streikbrecher nun auch trotz Zustimmung des Leiharbeiters unerlaubt sein. Allerdings soll es auch hier Ausnahmen geben, wenn der Leiharbeiter keine Tätigkeiten ausübt, die von der streikenden Stammbelegschaft ausgeführt werden. Zukünftig soll die verdeckte Arbeitnehmerüberlassung (Scheinwerkverträge) auch dann die Rechtsfolgen einer Beschäftigung beim Entleiher herbeiführen, wenn dieser eine Erlaubnis zur gewerblichen Arbeitnehmerüberlassung vorweisen kann. Die Änderungen werden in der Praxis für die Leiharbeiter wohl weniger spürbar sein, als vom Gesetzgeber beabsichtigt, da es viel Gestaltungsspielraum für die gewerblichen Zeitarbeitsfirmen gibt. Die Änderung zur Überlassungshöchstdauer können in der Praxis entweder dadurch ausgehebelt werden, dass Leiharbeiter ein paar Wochen vor dem Erreichen der entsprechenden Frist vom Entleiher abgezogen werden. Die Überlassungshöchstdauer ist nämlich wohl nach derzeitigem Stand arbeitnehmerbezogen und nicht arbeitsplatzbezogen. Außerdem kann durch Tarifvertrag oder Betriebsvereinbarung die maßgebliche Höchstdauer erhöht werden, so dass es in der Praxis der Zeitarbeitsbranche wohl auf mindestens 24 Monate Überlassungshöchstdauer hinauslaufen wird. Darüber hinaus würde es auch ausreichen, wenn der Leiharbeiter einfach drei Monate bei einem anderen Kunden „zwischengeparkt“ wird; denn dann beginnt die Frist erneut zu laufen, da nur solche Überlassungszeiten zu addieren sind, zwischen denen weniger als drei Monate liegen. Vom Grundsatz der gleichen Bezahlung für gleiche Arbeit (Equal Pay) kann auch in Zukunft durch Tarifvertrag abgewichen werden. Allerdings soll Equal Pay dann zumindest schrittweise erreicht werden. In der betrieblichen Praxis sind aber nur die wenigsten Leiharbeiter überhaupt so lange bei einem Kunden. Auch hier reicht eine Unterbrechung, damit die Frist von Neuem zu laufen beginnt: drei Monate „zwischenparken“ reichen grundsätzlich. Bezüglich der Rechtsfolgen bei einem Scheinwerkvertrag ist zu beachten, dass der Leiharbeiter binnen des erstens Monats der Überlassung oder binnen eines Monats nach der Unwirksamkeit der Überlassung, schriftlich erklären kann, an dem Arbeitsvertrag mit dem Verleiher festhalten zu wollen. In diesen Fällen kommt kein Arbeitsverhältnis mit dem Entleiher zustande, obwohl dies eigentlich von § 9 Nr. 1 AÜG i.V.m. § 10 Abs. 1 AÜG bezweckt ist. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass die Zeitarbeitsfirmen sich solch eine Erklärung vom Leiharbeiter vorab schriftlich und vor jeder Überlassung unterzeichnen lassen. Hier wird es darauf ankommen, wie die Arbeitsgerichte solch eine vorsorgliche Erklärung arbeitsrechtlich werten. In Zukunft soll aber der Betriebsrat vor dem Einsatz von Leiharbeitern umfassend informiert werden (Einsatzdauer, Aufgaben, Einsatzort etc.). Somit kann ein aktiver Betriebsrat ggf. mitwirken, dass die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen eingehalten werden und andernfalls aktiv Gegenmaßnahmen ergreifen.

In 1997, trade union and labor relations adjustment act substituted the term “with respect to the terms and conditions of employment” - which had been an element for definition of the industrial disputes - with “with respect to the determination of terms and conditions of employment”. Afterwards, the opinion that rights dispute is excluded from the category of industrial dispute and so cannot be accepted as a legitimate industrial actions nor as a subject for collective bargaining has been commonly accepted. However, some opinion dissent the opinion. In addition, the criticism pointing out that there is a lack of full-scale academic discussion on the relationship between rights dispute and industrial actions is arising. Such controversy became fierce after the judgement of Seoul High Court on April 2015. The court accepted the opinion insisting that the legitimacy of industrial actions depends on the specifics of rights dispute. The court held that legitimacy of industrial actions for rights dispute may be approved, however the rights dispute shall be related to fulfillment and compliance of collective agreement in contrast to interpretation or application. Opinions supporting the judgement are arising. This study aims to draw a reasonable principle, especially on whether fulfillment and compliance of collective agreement in contrast to interpretation or application may be accepted as an object of industrial actions by analyzing opinions on legitimacy of industrial disputes related to rights dispute. This study analyzes legitimacy of industrial disputes related to rights dispute on two perspectives - ‘Considering industrial actions as a sole’ and ‘Considering the relativeness with collective bargaining and industrial disputes’ - and concludes that rights dispute cannot be accepted as an object of industrial actions. Furthermore, this study dissents the opinion that considers the specifics of rights dispute which accepts legitimacy of industrial actions related to fulfillment and compliance of collective agreement in contrast to interpretation or application.