Earticle

韓国と日本では、団体協約締結権に關する學說は、労働者の権利と理解する‘労働者(組合員)權利說’と労働組合代表者の權利と理解する‘労働組合代表者權利說’に大く分けている。前者は、労組規約や團體協約等に労働組合の代表者の交涉及び協約締結權を制限するのができるし、この制限規程に対して労働部が是正要求するのはできない。また、労働組合代表者が團體交涉權制限規程に違反して使用者と締結した團體協約は無效になる。 此れに対する後者は、労組規約や団体協約等に労働組合の代表者の交涉及び協約締結權を制限するのはできるけと、それを全面的․包括的に制限するのは不可能である。そして、労働部が労働組合代表者の協約締結權を制限されている労組規約や団体協約等に対して是正要求はできないけと、それを全面的․包括的に制限されている場合は、是正要求するのができるし、労働組合代表者の協約締結權を全面的․包括的に制限すのはできないからその制限規程に違反して労働組合代表者が使用者と締結した団体協約は有效だの結論に達する。そして、後者には、‘労働組合代表者專權說’と‘労働組合代表者專權否定說’に分けている。韓国では、後者が多数說と判例の立場だから、労働組合の民主性と自主性、労使自律性に酷い問題点があるけと、日本では、前者が多数說と判例の立場だからそうじゃない。具体的に、學說に関して檢討すれば、後者の根據の理論のすべては妥當じゃないと思われる。初め、この見解は労組法上労働組合代表者の權限は憲法に規定された労働者の労働3權から緣由されるし、 ただ労働者(組合員)はその權限を労働組合代表者を通じて行使するはずの団結權と団体交涉權の本質の理解が浅い。次に、憲法と労組法の解釋の錯誤から緣由される。労組法は労働組合の代表者は　‘その労働組合 または組合員の爲に’ 団体交涉と団体協約を締結すると規定されて、団体協約締結權が労働組合代表者の排他的權限じゃない、‘その労働組合または組合員の爲に’持つ權限のを明確にしているのを看過している。三番目、この說は民法上法人の代表性理論を援用しているが、これは基本的に市民法と區別されている社會法原理に関する認識が浅くし労働組合の法理、団体交涉の法理、団体協約の法理をすべて誤解して労働組合を民法上の法人と混同したの結果だと思われる。四番目、この說は労働組合代表者の不誠實な交涉と労働組合の代表者たけ懷柔․脅迫すれて団体協約を締結すればよいだの使用者の不誠實な交涉慣行を是正しないで、むしろ獎勵する結果を招來する。五番目、労働組合代表者の団体協約締結權限を全面的･包括的に制限して事實上団体協約締結權を形骸化するの大法院判例は、労働法と団体交涉權の本質をよく理解できないからと思われる。根本的に自身の權利を形骸化するのは不可能で、むしろ組合員の意思を無效にするのは‘労働者’の団体協約締結權限を全面的･包括的に制限して、労働者の事實上団体協約締結權限さらに団体交涉權全體を形骸化する。また、これは労働者の労働3權を保障している憲法や労働組合の代表者は‘その労働組合または組合員の爲に’団体交涉と団体協約を締結するの労組法の精神を無視した解釋だとおもわれる。 総合すると、前者が正しい解釋, 団体交涉および団体協約締結權は全體組合員の權利であり、労働組合代表者は‘その労働組合または組合員の爲に’それを行使することに過ぎず、労組規約や団体協約等に労働組合代表者の団体協約締結權を制限することができるし、その制限規程に対して労働部が是正命令を下すのはできない。また、労働組合代表者が団体協約締結權制限規程を守らないで獨斷的に使用者と締結した団体協約は法的效力を持たないと解釋しなければならない。韓国の場合は、労働法と労使関係の先進化の為に長い間に労力したが、今までに大きい成果がないだから、とりあえず労働組合の民主性と自主性、労使自律性を高めるように、労働法の改正と解釋の先進化が必要とおもわれる。

Title VII of the Civil Richts Act of 1964 is the primary statute which prohibits employers from gender discrimination against employees. However, under Title VII, employer is offered the statutory defense of the bona fide occupational qualification(BFOQ) that allows employer to intentionally discriminate employees or applicants in their business based on gender when discriminatory employment practice is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business. If an employer is successful in offering the BFOQ defense, gender discrimination is legally permitted. While the regulations of BFOQ looks straight forward and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the BFOQ defense should be interpreted narrowly, in application, the gender BFOQ is riddled with inconsistencies within case law related. According to the gender BFOQ case law, Courts considering a BFOQ defense analyze the claim under the 'Tamiami' test and the 'essence of business' test, and courts often consider whether any reasonable alternatives exist to eliminate the discrimination. Employers attempt to elicit the BFOQ defense in variable contexts, employers' efforts are typically rejected on account that the BFOQ exception is intended to be extremely narrow. Currently, in general, the gender BFOQ defense is only successful in three main contexts: privacy, safety, and authenticity, almost any other motive such as gender stereotypes, customer preference, and sex appeal in the commercial sex industry will be refuted. The real problem is, in author's tiny view and humble opinion, although courts uphold the gender BFOQ defense based especially on privacy or rarely on safety, these motives are little more than customer preferences and gender stereotypes in disguise. Even though gender stereotypes and customer preferences have been expressly denied as valid gender BFOQ motives by courts and clearly gender stereotypes are the main target to be defeated by Title VII, gender stereotypes result in a discriminatory double standard in employment and society, even in courts. In the meaning of foregoing, serious concerns arise when privacy or rarely safety BFOQs are actually premised on stereotypes, because permitting a gender BFOQ which is based on privacy or safety with gender stereotypes in reality is to approve gender stereotypes legally and prolong these harmful stereotypes eternally. Here, the author of this shabby article, me, would like to suggest to call and watch these 'privacy requested by customer preference formed from or based on gender stereotypes' as 'contaminated privacy'. And this contaminated privacy should be distinguished from the genuine one which must be confined to the degree that, I maintain, an unfulfilled privacy customer preference may inflict a dignitary harm on an individual as a human being. Regarding safety based BFOQ, because Title VII vests employees with the right to take on unsafe and dangerous tasks, safety based solely on the employees' should be rejected but when the safety of third party is indispensible to the essence of business and also it may cause the failure of the business without gender based hiring in spite of her or his ability, I think, can be acceptable and reasonable. This dummy, the author, frankly neither can point at where gender differences exist or even if there are in real, nor explain whether they are inherent or socially learned. The gender BFOQ defense is not without problem and very harmful to certain group, however, balance of the rights and genuine need of gender based employment brought me to think the existence of the gender BFOQ is appropriate and reasonable in order to protect social values oriented to break 'glass ceiling' someday in the future.

There may be no troubles if the employer is defined as the subject for the obligation of collective bargaining and unfair labor practice based on the employment relation between the employee and the employer as defined in Labor Union Act. By the way, the analysis theory, which decides the counterpart in collective labor relations on the basis of existence of employment relation, has been developed based on the consistency between employment and use. However, the current tendency of using the labor force is not absolutely based on the consistency between employment and use. That is, it may frequently happen that the employment is inconsistent with the use at the initial stage of contract. As the form of utilizing the labor force has been variously developed, it is not sufficient to define the notion of the employer based on the law related to the employment contract. In order to solve this problem, various legal principles have been suggested. Regarding the notion of the employer in Labor Union Act, the definition of Korea Supreme Court(hereinafter "KSC") is very limited to only employment contract. However, most theories have tended to specially define the employer based on Labor Union Act to expand the notion of the employer. Especially, in the case of Hyndai Heavy Industry, the Seoul Administrative Court judged that Hyndai Heavy Industry partially has acted unfair labor practice, which is totally different from the one of KSC and it drew the attention of others. The final judgment of KSC is imminent, so we need to review the legal principles of the notion of the employer. In this paper, the legal principles for the expansion of the notion of the employer will be investigated and analyzed and improvement thereof will be suggested.

Age Discrimination Act of Korea was enacted and became effective on March 22th in 2009. The necessity to protect discrimination against older workers has been arising especially at work-places in Korea. Under these circumstances, I intend to introduce ADEA of U.S. to South Korea through this article. I have another purpose in this research, which is to take a close view on the 'Employment at Will Doctrine' of the U.S. The doctrine is well known as one of the representative legal theories of employment law in the U.S. Conclusions are as follow; ① The fact that the ADEA applies to discrimination against older workers in the all employment process is very notable. The doctrine of 'Employment at Will', of course, applies to the termination of employment against older workers strictly and narrowly. ② I think that the purpose and the content of the ADEA reflect well the importance of older workers' maintaining jobs in our human lives. Korean people remember still that many older workers had to retire compulsorily from their workplace under economic crisis in late 1990s (so-called 'I.M.F. Economy'). First of all, in general, we should have jobs to keep, promote, and enjoy our lives. In this point of view, the ADEA is not only an Act for protecting older workers, but also is an Act for realizing our life's value itself. Thus I think the Act is wonderful. ③ The fact that the burden of proof on an employee in a discrimination case shows a tendency to relax is notable. Theories concerning disparate treatment (including direct evidence, motivation, statistics) and defence (including seniority systems, BFOQ, RFOA, bona fide employee benefit plan etc.) have been permitted traditionally. In case of Smith v. City of Jackson, the Supreme Court held that disparate impact theory is available in ADEA. ④ The Supreme Court's holding in Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. should be evaluated highly. Unless the employer complies with requirement of the statute, in spite of his or her agreement to waive, can the employee claim against the employer's discrimination action based on age? The answer is yes by the Supreme Court. ⑤ Finally, a front pay is one of remedies (including hiring of employees with or without backpay, reinstatement, promotion, compensation, equitable relief, liquidated damages, interest, lawyer fee etc.) in discrimination case. There is also a compensation system similar to a front pay remedy system in Korea. Though there exists difference between these two systems, the front pay system is interesting enough to attract attentions as a remedy in Korea.

The constitutional law allows a reasonable discrimination. Reasonable discrimination does not infringe on the equal rights because of legitimacy. But reasonable discrimination is not exception of the discrimination but only one of the discrimination forms. The disabled persons act provides various forms of discrimination and it seems to explains that the there is no discrimination with the judgement of reason in discrimination. the disparate impact is one kind of discrimination in the view of equal right. So if there is reasonable in the disparate impact, it is not that discrimination don't exist, but the permitted, reasonable discrimination exists. When the court judge the discrimination of disabled persons in the industrial relation, they should consider the existence of discrimination, the legitimacy of discrimination in the view of the principle of proportion and undue hardship that means significant difficulty or expense in turn.

This study starts from the Equal Treatment Principle that employer should not treat employees differently in comparable group on employment conditions without good causes. This Principle includes not only specific legal issues such as gender-based discrimination, which some statutes have expressly prohibited, but also general matters of discriminatory employment practice in workplace. From that, this study tries to classify discriminatory practices into several categories - hiring, compensations, and dismissal - and to apply the equal treatment principle to each discrimination by type. This writing concludes that the legal proceeding protecting employees' right to be free from discrimination can be diversely instituted by the type of discriminatory practices. For example, if some employees are excluded from certain benefits with the basis of discriminatory practice, such as a discrimination in compensation, the right to demand on account of the difference should be granted to the injured employees. On the contrary, if employer dismisses some employees from jobs with a discriminatory intention, it should be legally invalid in order to be free from the legal effect of the dismissal. Besides in case of hiring, unless applicants are covered with express provisions against specific discrimination, even if employer unequally treat the applicants for a job, it can not be regarded as a matter relating to discriminatory practice in employment, because the freedom to conclude a contract is prior to all others in the process of hiring.

非正規職の雇用は、現行の労働者保護の法律によって含むことのできない多様な雇用形態と内容として増えつつある。欧州諸国では、非正規職が従来の労働条件保護法制の保護を充分に受けつつ、事業場において正規職に比べ労働条件の差別を受けないよう、法制度を整えようとしている。これに対する欧州連合の指針は企業の置かれている経済環境から労使間のニーズに応じて発生し、維持・拡大している。そこで、欧州連合の非正規職の差別禁止制度を正しく把握するためには、まず、欧州連合の立法指針を検討すべきである。その理由は、欧州連合の立法指針は、欧州における個別国の国内法律が順守しなければならない「基本理念」と「規律の内容」を前提にしているからである。欧州諸国は、非正規職の保護法制をすでに1999年の「期間制労働に関する指針」としてそれぞれ採択し、「差別禁止原則」と「比例保護原則」に関する規定を整えている。そして、加盟国は2000年以後からこのような内容の国内法を制定し、労働者の差別救済の手続きを運用している。ここで、期間制労働の欧州連合の指針は、「差別禁止原則」と「比例保護原則」を明らかにしているだけで、具体的な差別禁止法制の「構成」と「救済手続き」は国家別に形成している。ただし、期間制労働に関する指針は「社会的な同伴者」の合意内容を採択した意味を有している。無論、欧州諸国は現在の形の欧州連合の指針と各国の法律を設計し施行するために、長い間、多様な実証研究と理論を形成するプロセスも経てきたことには留意しなければならない。本稿では、欧州連合そのものの非正規職の差別禁止に関する規律傾向を、欧州連合の立法指針を中心に見てきた。まず、欧州連合の立法動向として、一般的な差別禁止に関する立法指針の成立と内容、非正規労働者と関連した差別禁止の立法指針の内容として、99/70/EC立法指針(1997.12.15、期間制労働者)をまとめてみた。結論的には、本稿においては、欧州連合の立法指針によって期間制労働者の差別に対する欧州連合加盟国の自国の法律は、一定に同和していく推移であることが分かる。特に、欧州連合の立法指針が加盟国の立法に与える内容を見ると、外国の立法例として直接的に国家の内容を紹介するよりは、今後韓国の非正規職の差別禁止の救済制度の施行と内容を具体化する良い事例となりうると思われる。キーワード)　欧州連合の立法指針、非正規職、短時間労働者、期間制労働者、差別禁止