Earticle

This paper aims to examine the main contents of the revised Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as ISHA) in relation to the Act on Arrangement of Relevant Acts to Promote Work Style Reform (Reformation Act), which was enacted in April 2019 in Japan, and to draw implications from this analysis. The main contents of the revised ISHA can be divided into several areas. First, the acts strengthen the functions of industrial physicians and occupational health and includes a requirement that employers provide information necessary for industrial physicians to properly perform their duties. Second, with the exception of workers covered by the highly professional work system, employers must monitor workers’ working hours using methods specified by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Third, when workers who fall under the highly professional work system spend more than a designated length of time in the workplace, the employer is obliged to ensure that the workers are interviewed by and receive guidance from a medical doctor. By taking measures to restrain long working hours and by introducing a highly professional work system, these revisions strengthen employee health management by promoting employee health rights along with efficient work hour management. In Korea, the revised Occupational Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as “OSHA”) will be implemented beginning in 2021. However, because the main central purpose of the revised OSHA of Korea and the ISHA of Japan are totally different, this paper has encountered limitations in drawing implications for comparative research. The OSHA is mainly concerned with workers’ physical damage, prevention of industrial accidents and improvement of industrial safety based on the manufacturing industry. Also, preventive procedures for health maintenance and management, including the mental health of workers, are somewhat insufficient in the OSHA, according to evaluations. In the near future, like Japan’s ISHA, OSHA is expected to address lengthy work hours and employee health management in accordance with changes in the work hours legislation in Korea. Therefore, a discussion about employee health maintenance and management with respect to the OSHA, including addressing mental health issues, is imperative.

The “Occupational Safety and Health Act” promulgated this year focuses on expanding the scope of protection and clarifying responsibilities. The purpose of the contract is to clarify the ‘worker’, and the concept of the owner in the contracting business, the duty of establishing the safety and health plan of the representative of the company (representative director), prevention of occupational accidents at the affiliated headquarters, the registration of tower crane business. It can be evaluated that the workplace has rearranged the safety and health preventive responsibilities that should be taken against the protected object, focusing on what is and what is needed. Sub-legislation (Enforcement Decree, Enforcement Regulations) of the “Occupational Safety and Health Act” to be enforced next year has been enacted on April 22, 2019. Sub-legislation is important because it enacts the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which will be enforced next year. As the industrial safety and health law, which faced criticism that the opinions of stakeholders have not been sufficiently gathered during the revision process, the contents of the subordinate statutes that specify this should be examined more carefully and carefully. From this point of view, this study reviewed the contents of the sub - ordinance, focusing on the articles newly established in the revision of the Industrial Safety and Health Law, and sought to draw up improvements.

The Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Disaster Compensation Insurance Act were enacted on July 16, 2019 to regulate the issue of Workplace Harassment. It is very significant in terms of Korea's first legislation on the issue of Workplace Harassment. However, there is a limit because it is difficult to regulate the harassment like that occur among the parties who do not have a labor contract relationship. For accurate interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Labor Standards Act, appropriateness such as “superiority of status or relationship”, “business appropriate range”, “physical and mental distress”, and “action to deteriorate the work environment”, to establish a good interpretation theory is very important. Regarding the Industrial Safety and Health Law, there are debates as to whether injuries or illnesses caused by workplace harassment are included in occupational accidents, and whether it is possible to stop the work(suspension of work) due to workplace harassment. There are also discussed whether recognized the obligation of workplace harassment prevention education. It seems that the substantive meaning is insufficient even if it is permitted to discontinue work under the current legal system. Finally, new legislation is desirable. It is desirable to establish an enforcement law that can comprehensively regulate the harassment. And, the Employment and Labor Department's manual also needs to be supplemented to ensure that the system is established and operated.

Unfair labor practices are acts that infringe upon the labor-management relations that are created by guaranteeing workers’ three primary rights and allowing national intervention in such practices. The current Labor Union Act prohibits five types of unfair labor practices, stipulates the application of penalties to employers who violate those practices, and outlines procedures for relief available to workers through the Labor Relations Commission. This is sometimes referred to as the principle of combination, which incorporates both punishments and administrative relief. By employing a system of punishment and one of administrative relief toward unfair labor practices, the current Labor Union Act has tried to promote advantages and overcome shortcomings from both measures. It accomplishes this by reducing damages caused by unfair labor practices that have already transpired and mitigating incidents before they occur. In theory, minimizing unfair labor practices using a combination of both punishments and administrative relief is ideally effective. However, in reality, it is worth considering that the two measures are not able to achieve their purpose properly because there are many cases in which they are incompatible. When reviewing legislative history, Japan—which operates under a similar system of unfair labor practices to Korea—no longer has regulations that directly punish these practices. Japan has already recognized the limitations of punishment measures and has turned focus instead to administrative relief. In such an environment, several issues were mentioned supporting the transition. First, the definition of unfair labor practices was unclear and was ineffective in determining the components of these crimes. The criminal penalty was also unable to provide essential restitution for unfair labor practices. Finally, in the few cases actually punished, processing was delayed under the punishment measure. As a result, criminal punishment for unfair labor practices was clearly recognized as an unsuitable means of protection for workers in Japan. This research examined the unconstitutionality of the punishment clause for unfair labor practices and confirmed that it is time for Korea to actively discuss its abolition to improve the effectiveness of the unfair labor practice system.

The Korean content industry has long been exempt from working time regulations due to the creative nature of the profession. However, in promulgating an amendment to the country’s 1997 Labor Standard Act, the exemption of the working time regulations for this industry was revoked in 2018. Even though the amendment slashes the maximum weekly work hours to 52 from 68 hours—in order to improve work-life balance among its workers and enhance labor productivity—many conflicts and much confusion still exist, because more realistic and concrete institutional measures are not yet supported. In this regard, this research aims to examine how major North American and European countries including the U.K, U.S, Canada, France and Germany implement their working time regulations for the content industry by focusing on the collective agreements between their major content industry unions and employers. In order to systematically examine each country’s collective agreements between its major unions and employers, this study analyzes the issue through six different comparative analysis frames: 1) whether the content industry is classified as an exemption from the working time regulations; 2) how the work time is defined; 3) whether there is an agreement on the maximum daily working hours; 4) whether there is an agreement on the maximum weekly working hours, 5) how the issue of criminal punishment and treatment in the case of violation of the given agreement is treated; and 6) who represents the main parties of the agreement. Based on this comparative analysis, the study then scrutinizes the collective agreements of Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematography and Theatre Union (BECTU) in the U.K, Directors Guilds in America (DGA) in the U.S, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) and Canadian Media Guilds (CMG) in Canada, Les Monteurs Associés in France, and TV FFS and NV Bühne in Germany. Regardless of differences among the sampled countries, this research reveals three main trends and major characteristics commonly found in terms of 1) insurance of workers' rights, 2) enhancement of regulative flexibility reflecting the specificity of the content industry, and 3) securing of the autonomy and effectiveness of collective agreements. Based on these findings, the research suggests four policy implications for working time regulations for the Korean content industry. Firstly, it is necessary to more clearly establish the definition and the criteria of working time to ensure workers’ rights. Secondly, a more flexible regulative system should be applied by considering the specificity of each field of the content industry. Thirdly, it is practically difficult to create detailed guidelines of working time regulations covering all the sub-fields of the content industry, so the government needs to consider how to encourage and secure more collective bargaining and agreements within the content industry. Finally, it is necessary to strengthen the effectiveness and regulatory power of the working time regulation

The report system of the establishment of trade union has been criticized because it has been operated like permit system and has violated the international labour standards. It should be improved in accordance with the multiple trade unionism, not only to solve the criticism, but to ratify the ILO fundamental Conventions. Precedent researches are as follows; ① Abolition of the report system of the establishment of trade union, ② Partial improvement of the report system of the establishment of trade union, ③ Total improvement of the report system of the establishment of trade union, ④ The introduction of new Registration system. It is desirable that the new system would be introduced considering the criticism about the report system, the international labour standards and the correspondence with the multiple trade unionism. It is reasonable that any person who intends to establish a trade union shall have a choice between the optional registration system and the review system of trade union. That is to say, any person who intends to establish a trade union is not obliged to register, but a trade union could be protected by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act if the trade union would register to the Labour Relations Commission. A trade union that does not register can participate in the process of single bargaining table, but its legal status should be reviewed if a party in the same bargaining unit would appeal its legal status. In parallel with the introduction of the new system, the relevant clauses should be revised in order to meet the international labour standards and the principle of freedom of association.

Employees have a dual dependency in his or her relationship with the employer. One is the dependency that stems from their employment contract, and the other is the dependency that stems from information asymmetry. Employees are subject to considerable pressure due to information asymmetry, which thereby leads them to inspect themselves and eventually come to a voluntary submission. Our personal data Protection Act allows such information asymmetry, provided that there is consent from the employees for the processing of their personal data, including electronic labor monitoring. But it is not easy for an employee to refuse to consent when the employer has an advantage of substantial power over the employee. That is to say, the validity of an employee's consent is questionable. Labor law operates under the premise that individual employees are weak, but groups of employees are strong. Therefore, if the validity of an employee’s consent is questionable, one method to be considered is collectively processing the gathering and using of employees’ personal data. Before considering that, there lies an issue that needs to be decided first, which is the constitutional nature of self-determination for personal data. If self-determination for personal data has a legal nature far from delegation, a collective decision based on consent from representatives of employees or a majority of employees will lose its legal basis. The constitutional nature of self-determination for personal data is argued to be threefold. The first is the secrecy or freedom over one’s personal life or the right to privacy. However, not all personal data of an employee falls under the area of privacy, and to consider giving up the liberal nature of secrecy and freedom of personal life, it must be of voluntary nature. This is unacceptable when in a position of questioning the validity of consent. The second is the personal rights. This argument, conceived in that labor is inseparable from a person’s character, is also the view of the Supreme Court. However, an employee’s personal data is not necessarily always associated with personal character and the nature of personal rights is also the essence of human rights. Therefore, it is difficult for employees to delegate their personal rights themselves or restrict the rights within the relationship with other fundamental rights. The third view is that the right to self-determination for personal data is an independent fundamental right, which is not listed in Article 37 paragraph 1 of the Constitution. This is the view of the Constitutional Court. The reason for this is that as the nation develops from a passive to an active welfare state, their function requires massive information collection. This may have side effects, as the existing freedom and secrecy of personal life, and personal rights have been proven to be insufficient in protecting fundamental rights. This paper supports the third view. In considering the collective decision-making method when processing the employees’ personal data, there exist the following three methods: employment rules, collective bargaining, and the decisions of the Labor-Management Conference. First, if it is listed in the employment rules, the problem arises as to the basis for forcing employees who are not in favor of it. However, so long as employment rules gain normative power, they can be enforced by law. Second, when it comes to collective bargaining, an issue arises as to whether it is a mandatory negotiation or not. As processing of personal data is a contractual condition, it may be recognized as a mandatory negotiation. Third, the range of subject matters put forward for discussion or resolution at the Labor-Management Conference may be considered. It is recommended to revise the Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation to regard matters concerning personal data of employees to be subject to mandatory discussion or resolution. However, even if this cannot be done, they may discuss matters concerning the installation of surveillance equipment under Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the same Act or other matters concerning labor-management cooperation.

The‘wage distribution disclosure system’ refers to the disclosure of the wage distribution of employment patterns, gender, job position, and rank. In addition, the wage distribution disclosure system examines the basis of implementation in the public and private sectors. However, the wage distribution disclosure system in the private sector has not yet been introduced because there is no clear legal basis for implementing it. The introduction of a wage distribution disclosure system in the private sector is necessary to address the wage gap between men and women in order to understand the level of treatment by types of employment and gender of individual companies, and to encourage the companies to voluntarily improve employment patterns and gender-discriminatory employment conditions. Therefore, the legal basis of the wage distribution disclosure system shall be prepared. There are two ways to prepare a legal basis. First, the wage distribution disclosure system is implemented based on the current Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act. In this case, however, it is questionable whether it will be effective in terms of the effect of improving wage discrimination between men and women since the coverage is limited. The second method is to prepare the basis for implementation through the revision of the current law. For example, the Wage Distribution Notice System is implemented through the bill of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act and the Framework Act on Employment Policy. The next step is to specify the details through sub-laws. For example, the Wage Distribution Disclosure Scheme needs to specify the items that comprise the disclosure method, the subject to which it applies, the timing of implementation and the disclosure period. Finally, when the wage distribution disclosure system is implemented, the relevant ministries need to select and deploy personnel and to supervise it.

Employers as unfair labor practices and employers as collective bargaining parties can not be judged to be uniformly the same or different. For example, the type of unfair labor practices can be regarded as the same in relation to the denial of collective bargaining, but it is different in relation to disadvantageous handling or dominant intervention. As with the Supreme Court case, a employer who has been subjected to unfair labor practices or to unfair labor practices involving dominant intervention may become a contractor. However, as in the case of the case, a employer who has committed unfair labor practices to refuse collective bargaining with a subcontracted labor union becomes a subcontractor who is a collective bargaining party under the premise of an employment contract relationship. In conclusion, the conclusion of the ruling that the contractor is not the party to conclude collective bargaining or collective agreement with the subcontractor trade union seems reasonable. In the case of the Supreme Court, in the case of a subcontracted worker, the subcontractor is a person who is in a status of substantial and specific decision of domination. Therefore, the subcontractor is recognized as a employer as an unfair labor practice subject, I did not recognize the business as a employer. As a result, Hyundai Heavy Industries (Hyundai Heavy Industries) is the actual decision maker of the subcontractor, and is not the party to the implied labor contract. In addition to the fact that the contents of the facts are different from one case to another, there is a difference between the subcontractor and the subcontractor in the contents of the subcontractor relationship. Therefore, the employer should not be judged or generalized uniformly. However, the case law suggests ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ in accordance with the expansion of the employer concept in order to judge the employers as collective bargaining parties in the in-house subcontracting relationship. As a collective bargaining agent based on this implicit labor contractual relationship, the employer is distinct from the employer as a subject of unfair labor practice, which is in a status of practical and specific ruling on the subcontractor trade union. This is because those who are in a position of actual or specific ruling can not, of course, become employers in the implicit labor contract relationship. In the end, ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ is related to the expansion of employer concept, and ‘actual and specific status of dominant decision’ should be related to the expansion of the subject of unfair labor practice.

‘Resting time’ means the time when an employee is completely free from the command or order of an employer during working hours and is guaranteed free use. Under Article 54 of the current Labor Standards Act, employers are obliged to give the employee resting time of more than 30 minutes for working hours of four hours or more than one hour for working hours of eight hours under the heading “recess” (Section 1). Resting time is a time that employees can freely use (Section 2). In addition, Article 110 stipulates penalties for breach of duty to grant resting time, and the resting time system is backed by enforcement regulations that can’t be avoided by the free will of labor contracting parties. However, the first “Labor Standards Act”, which was enacted as Law No. 286 of 1953 5 10, had the same resting time provisions as the current regulations in Article 44, except for the penalties at the time of violation. Since then, the “Labor Standards Act” has undergone a number of reforms related to various working conditions, but the resting time provisions have been the same as those at the time of the original enactment, except for the penalties for violations. About 70 years have passed since the resting time system was introduced for the first time. In the meantime, Korea has changed its industrial structure and various jobs and occupations have emerged accordingly. In this way, it is doubtful whether the resting time system, which has long defined the same contents under complex and diverse conditions, can perform its role efficiently. However, there are few studies related to the rest time regulation and operational feasibility. This study was made for the purpose of reviewing the contents and application problems of the current rest time system from various perspectives. For the detailed contents of the study, first, the problems of the operation of the resting time system were classified into the resting time length, the assignment and arrangement. Based on this, the validity of the current regulations and the conventional interpretation theory was examined. Next, the issue of changing the resting time was examined in relation to the procedure of changing the rules of employment. If the employer wishes to change the length of the resting time, this should be done through the change of the rules of employment. However, shortening or expanding the length of the resting time is not necessarily disadvantageous or advantageous to the employees, so this is examined with the concept of “staying time at work”. Finally, as the number of part-time workers has increased considerably, the applicability of the current resting time provisions for these part-time workers has been examined.