지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제41호
- 발행연도
- 2024.3
- 수록면
- 1 - 25 (25page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2024.03.41.1
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Legal disputes surrounding employment rules are frequent and the issues are diverse. It should be kept in mind that employment rules have a very important functional significance in that they actually determine the collective yet specific working conditions of workers. Therefore, normative completeness regarding employment rules is very important. Unfortunately, the current Labor Standards Act has only five provisions regarding employment rules. Of course, no legislation can be perfect. Legislative flaws are inevitable. Legislative deficiencies are filled by judges with case law. The problem is that there is excessive reliance on case law when it comes to legal issues surrounding the creation and change of employment rules. Moreover, such case law is constantly being formed and changed. The Labor Standards Act is a mandatory regulation and has criminal sanctions as its legal effect. Norms regarding employment rules should aim for legal clarity.
On the other hand, the content of the regulations regarding changes to employment rules may also be problematic. A company"s business conditions are variable. Accordingly, working conditions are also bound to be variable. This means that changes in employment rules are bound to occur frequently. The problem is when the content of employment rules is changed to disadvantage workers. Although it is stipulated in Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, in fact, the legal change procedure is ‘in fact’ flawed.
The result is prolonged litigation, and the resulting damages are borne entirely by the labor and management parties. The reason is simple. This is because it is impossible to carry out procedures for unfavorable changes to employment rules, and ultimately, we would like to receive the court"s judgment as to whether changes are possible without going through such procedures. Lastly, there is a question as to whether the principles of workplace democracy are sufficiently embedded in the employment rule system. As long as the employment rules are viewed as norms, the operating principles of the employment rules must also be harmonized with democratic principles. The participation of employees within the workplace must be guaranteed and their collective opinions must be respected.
On the other hand, the content of the regulations regarding changes to employment rules may also be problematic. A company"s business conditions are variable. Accordingly, working conditions are also bound to be variable. This means that changes in employment rules are bound to occur frequently. The problem is when the content of employment rules is changed to disadvantage workers. Although it is stipulated in Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, in fact, the legal change procedure is ‘in fact’ flawed.
The result is prolonged litigation, and the resulting damages are borne entirely by the labor and management parties. The reason is simple. This is because it is impossible to carry out procedures for unfavorable changes to employment rules, and ultimately, we would like to receive the court"s judgment as to whether changes are possible without going through such procedures. Lastly, there is a question as to whether the principles of workplace democracy are sufficiently embedded in the employment rule system. As long as the employment rules are viewed as norms, the operating principles of the employment rules must also be harmonized with democratic principles. The participation of employees within the workplace must be guaranteed and their collective opinions must be respected.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 취업규칙의 법적 개념과 기능적 의의
Ⅲ. 취업규칙의 변경에 관한 규율 재검토
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0