Earticle

1. The problem of the labour laws in Korea is to step up to match the international standard. Korea has been criticized by falling behind in legislation to shorten one og the longest working hours in the world while it is a member of OECD, which would not be desirable for the future of the country. Korea is asked to revise the current laws to meet the international standard following ILO's recommendation. 2. We have experienced the retrogressive revisions of the labour laws since three primary labour laws were enacted in 1953. Industrial conflicts since then have continued as such undesirable amendments have brought the deterioration of the work environment as well as inhuman treatment against workers, and thus the protection of workers has fallen into the shade. The pending labour related laws in Korea lag behind in the international standard set by ILO. 3. A good indicator judging the level of the labour standard law in a country should be that the value for the life and the body of a worker is highly esteemed. In that sense, the situation in Korea is serious considering the casualties and the economic cost (out of industrial injury) has now hit Kwon 10trillion. Korea is also unjustly accused as a savage country by the fact that the number of workers who died from overwork is the highest in the world. The cause of such a disgrace should be on the shortage of watchdog out of only about 10% of union organizing rate owing to the intensified labour resulting from overheated competition as well as pursuit of profit and not any established administrative/penal responsibil! ! ity. 4. Every country initiate its own labour standard law enactment for the protection of workers who regarded as the weak socially as well as economically. In case of Korea however ignores 40 hour work week and a regular day off once a week, which are ILO's suggestion of agreement, by rather preparing conditions (Article 50-Clause 1&2/Article 52&54 of the labour standard law) with which the employer can force ite employees to extend the working hours if need be. In case of female worker, for example, the advanced countries in Europe and America observe the ILO agreement #103, Korea dose not however, to which the protection of mother's body being of prime concern, she can manage her household free fromcare of dis! ! missal with a short time working. 5. I think Korea heading toward an advanced country should enjoy the confidence of the international society by amending any laws in force fell short of the international standard, abolition of really existing discrimination including the irregular employment and also through legislation to meet ILO agreement and suggestion in advance of coming up to the standard in many advanced countries.

The labor disputes resolution system of china is that a labor dispute should be arbitrated first and then be heard by the People’s Court. The legal resources of labor disputes resolution system mainly are as follows ; The labor Law of PRC(the 10th chapter), The Regulation on labor Disputes Resolution in Enterprises(1993), The Deliverance on some Issues in Implementation of the Labor Law of PRC(issued by the Labor Ministry in 1995, No 309), The interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Application of Law in Trial of Labor Disputes(Fashi〔2001〕 No. 14) and The Ordinance of the Supreme People’s Court on Trial of Personal Disputes in Shi Ye Undertakings (Fashi 〔2003〕No 13). In this paper study about disputes resolution by labor resolution by labor arbitration. The labor disputes arbitration of china is different from other countries. The scope of application for labor arbitration of china not only include disputes caused collective action but also include them arising at the time of concluding labor contracts and all of the disputes between laborers and employers arising at the time of exiting labor relation. One parties of dispute refer the dispute to arbitration without agreement of other parties. The labor arbitration institutions of china which are attached to labor administration department go in to a problem of independent organizations.This paper deal with the appointment of an arbitrator and board of arbitration, the preparation, an oral hearing by the arbitrator or board and conclusion.

In a capitalistic society, diverse members of the society recognize various problems caused by the intrinsic contradiction and they make complaints or use collective force as a way to solve such problems. One of such phenomena is the conflict of labor-management issues, and the system of labor dispute mediation is presented as one of the solution methods. The patterns of labor disputes are divided into a collective dispute between the trade union and the management and an individual dispute between employees and the management. They can also be classified as a dispute for profit or one for right according to their characteristics. In the United States and Canada, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is in charge of the affair of mediating labor disputes. In the U.S., the FMCS mediates existing labor disputes, offers mediation to prevent labor disputes from occurring, settles the dispute for profit in the public sector, mediates the dispute for right in the private sector, assists business corporations in their efforts to develop the system of labor-management relations, gropes for effective alternatives to settle disputes and advises on the collective bargaining, provides education to refine the technique of collective bargaining and carries out publicity activities. In Canada, the FMCS mediates the disputes related with collective bargaining, offers complaint-settlement service, provides training to better labor-management relations and gives financial support to improve the relations between the management and the labor union within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Deutschland hat verschiedenartige System um die Arbeitsstreitigkeiten zu lösen. Arbeitsstreitigkeiten in Deutschland verteilen sich nach individuelle Arbeitsverhältnis und kollektive Arbeitsverhältnisse, wichtig ist die Stratigkeiten der kollektive Arbeitsverhältnisse. Die kollektive Arbeitsstreitigkeiten entsthen aus Tarifvertrag. Die Streitsgegenstand unterscheidet sich druch die Erlabnis des Vereinsrechts oder Gemeinschaftshandlungsrechts dem Vertragspartner. So die kollektive Arbeitsverhältnisse unterscheidet sich nach der Streitigkeit zwischen der Tarifvertragspartner oder Streitigkeit in dem Arbeitsplatz. Und Rechtsstreitigkeit und Regelungsstreitigkeit nach dem Recht oder Regelung um die Streitigkiet unterschielche zu lösen. Die Arbeitsstreitigkeiten in Deutschland ist grundsätzlich als Rechtsstreitigkeit in Arbeitsgericht zu lösen. Auch für die Regelungsstreitigkeit sind die Streitigkeitpartner durch Schlichtungssystem selbst zu lösen. Meinstens Streigkeit in Deutschland ist die Rechtsstreitigkeit zwischen Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitsgeber, die in Korea wie auch andere Länder häufig entsthet. Die Rechtsstreitigkeit in Deutschand entscheidet sich in Arbeitsgericht, die sich nur Arbeitsstreigtigkeit handelt. Arbeitgericht hat durch die Klage die Streitigkeit zu lösen, und durch die Einigung zwischen Streitpartner zu lösen. Die Arbeitsgericht in Deutschand hat spezielle Gericht als Dreimalentscheidungssystem für die Arbeitsstreitigkeit, die zur Zibilgericht gehört, gleich wie Allgemeinegericht, und hat unabhängige gerechtigkeit. Außerdem in besondere Fälle durch die private Schiedsausschuss zu lösen, die nur sonder Begrenzung darf. In der kolletive Arbeitsverhältnisse in Deutschland lösen die vor dem Abschluß der Tarifvertrag oder Betriebsvereinbarung entstehende Streitigkeit durch das Arbeitsstreitigkeit-Schlichtungsystem der Beteiligte selbst zu lösen. Deutschalnd hat den Streitigkeit zwischen Arbietnehmer und Arbeitgeber durch einige Lösungsmittel zu lösen, die grundsätzlich traditionelle geschichtliche Experiment einführen. Vor allem die Streitigkeit zwischen Arbietnehmer und Arbeitgeber gibt in die Gesellschaft große Einfluß und deshalb minimaliert die Streitigkeit. In dieser Arbeit wird untersucht erstens, die Unterschieden der Arbeitsstreitigkeit zwischen Korea und Deutschland, und dann die Art der Arbeitsstreitigkeit und Lösungsmittel der Streitigkeit in Deutschland zu betrachten. Auch wie Deutschland sie Schlichten und lösen zu untersuchen. Dadurch wird sich in gleichen Fälle in Korea die Findung der Entwicklungsgelegenheit für das Arbeitsstreitigkeitslösungssystem erwartet.

Close examination of current labor disputes shows that labor courts are more effective in settling labor disputes than Labor Commissions. Nevertheless, under the current system, most labor disputes are resolved by judicial decisions in ordinary courts if there are disagreements between the parties concerned after a mediation process. These practices have caused a lot of ineffectiveness since it needs a long period of time and big amount money to reach a verdict in ordinary courts. Therefore, it is desirable to establish a labor court with the function of prompt mediation of current Labor Commissions for the prompt and efficient settlements of labor disputes. Mediation between labor and management is also possible in the labor court since disputes can also be settled through reconciliation, mediation and arbitration as well as trials. In other words, it is more appropriate to establish a labor court with a department exclusively responsible for reconciliation so that labor disputes can be resolved through reconciliation rather than by arbitration in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

The introduction of a law school system in Korea is a contentious subject. The involved institutions comprise the government, universities, the Korean Bar Association and the judiciary. In the beginning, there was considerable resistance against the plans for a law school system. The government decided nevertheless to change the law education system in anticipation of the opening of the law service market. The Korean government intends to conclude FTAs with the USA, China and Japan. If this plan materializes the Korean law service market will face international competition with global law firms. Then, it will become a social necessity to introduce a law school system in order to protect the rights of the Korean people in international legal disputes as the present law education system does not provide a competitive edge to the local lawyers. The Korean Bar Association is adamant about the number of students who should be allowed to enter law schools. It asserts a yearly quota of 1200 persons. The law departments of the universities insist on a number of 3000 students. The main reason for this conflict lies in differing views on the legal position of lawyers. They themselves ascribe an official character to their position, which is in general disputed by the universities. Under those circumstances, I suggest that the law school system should be redesigned, as it will not provide the envisioned effects in form of improved competitiveness. To cope with the opening of the law service market each law department should be able to choose its own focus and specialization in the law field. Then the applicants will be able to choose those law schools that match their professional ambitions best. This would also make redundant the need for the government to allocate quotas or get mixed up in the management of the law schools. Many proponents of the law school system deem it necessary for the solution of domestic problems like the excessive number of students preparing for the lawyer examination. They misunderstand or underestimate the much more important international perspective of the law schools. In the future, Korean lawyers must be able to open offices in China, India and the USA. Korean lawyers must acquire expertise in foreign law. To make that possible, the government has to redesign the present law school scheme with an orientation towards the international law service market in mind. In conclusion, the quotas as well as the specialisation of the law schools must be up to the universities in order to enhance their international competitiveness on the global law service market.

Employment relations are established based on but closely related with an employment contract in principle, and also are legal relations that bind labor and management mutually. Furthermore, management rights and unityㆍcollective action rights are mutually restricted relations. With the realization of democratic labor-management relations, right exercise is in need of accepting mutual limitation. Although unity action was only activity of expressing citizens' collective opinion in the level of civil laws, it could have legal approval of special protective exemption in an aspect of labor laws through amending the principle of civil laws. Its objective is to secure criminal and civil exemption of union activity and to prohibit unfair labor action, which is inherent in the constitution. Accordingly, interpretation theory that distinguishes unity action from a strike and is intended to exclude unity action by agreement from the objection of exemption from the beginning cannot be accepted. It is because both strike and unity action by agreement pursue a common goal to realize the value of right to live. Management rights are employer's inherent rights. Although a precedent admits it as a legal right, this does not mean that it is a right based on the positive law. But its scope of execution as a decision making right reserved to an employer also is limited to legal matters. While some deny the existence of management rights on the basis of its failure to prescribe specifically in constitution or laws like labor rights, others argue that management rights should be admitted as a nature right since it should be organically consistent with the management of a property right in the constitution system which ensures a property right. On the other hand, the objective of securing labor rights in the constitution is to realize the value of right to live that union activity has. In essence, legal evaluation about labor-management relations should always respect the spirit of the constitution and examine its validity. Also the principal of labor laws should be developed and controlled according to harmonic order. This study is intended to examine union activity rights and their definite guarantee, and evaluation standards of controlling legal benefit with management rights. Furthermore, this study seeks to establish the characteristics of union activity and new management order which meets reality. Management rights are given to fully fulfill a duty to improve productivity and produce quality products and service through rational operation for continuation and development of management. Its legal basis is on a property right, a legal right based on labor contract with labor, and manager's inherent functional right. Existing legal control over union activity has not played an active role in protecting management rights, breaking labor's economic and human dependent relations, and dealing with special legal matters according to community development and changes in labor-management relations. Since labor laws do not provide all kinds of problems which can occur during union activity, when union activity comes into conflict with management rights, labor laws do not act as evaluation standards for legal benefit, but provide one limited protective law. To solve problems which are not provided in labor laws, the regulations and principle of protective law of labor laws are needed to be actively analogized, expanded, and applied according to historical background of being defined as basic rights and its basic intent. Finally, labor laws are needed to establish the development direction of providing labor-management relations prior to labor protection in order to fully secure union activity and management rights. Based on the basic intent, the purpose of this study is to suggest interpretation standards which can objectively and rationally evaluate all problems of union activity which are not provided in labor laws. Furthermore, this study seeks solutions to improve company's economic creativity and desire for investment and reinforce company's competitiveness in establishing the limitation of harmony when management rights and labor rights come into conflict.