원직복직과 해고예고수당

황운희 아주대학교 법학연구소 2020 아주법학 Vol.14 No.3

Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act provides as follow: “When an employer intends to dismiss an employee (including dismissal for management reasons), he/she shall give the employee a notice of dismissal at least 30 days in advance of such dismissal, and, if the employer fails to give such advance notice, he/she shall pay such employee a 30 days’ ordinary wage at the least.” This regulation is aimed at protecting against the difficult livelihood of an employee due to sudden dismissal of an employee and losing his/her job. The employer can choose whether to give an advance notice of dismissal to the employee or pay a dismissal notice allowance. When an employer give an employee an advance notice of dismissal, the employee is obligated to offer labor even during the dismissal notice period, and the employer can earn economic benefits from the employee's provision of work. However, in many cases, althought an employer gives up such economic benefits, he/she pays the dismissal notice allowance without an advance notice of dismissal because of reduced trust in a worker. This is why it is hard for the employer to take the employee into the workplace as before. Therefore, the employer pays the dismissal notice allowance to the employee in order to avoid the penalty. If it is determined that the employer's dismissal is unfair, the dismissal becomes invalid and the employee returns to the workplace. If the employee restarted working at the company as before, there would be no need for the employee to find a new job, so there would be no need for the employer to pay the dismissal notice allowance. Nevertheless, paying the dismissal notice allowance is beyond the purpose of an advance notice of dismissal. If the dismissal was invalid, the legal effect should be applied equally to employees and employers. However, it is not fair to ask the employer to still acknowledge the effect of dismissal and pay the dismissal notice allowance even though the effect of invalidation of dismissal applied to an employee. In addition, employees who received the dismissal notice allowance will gain much better economic benefits as the allowance than those who got an advance notice of dismissal. This is not fair even among employees. Therefore, if he/she returns to the workplace due to the unfair dismissal, the dismissal notice allowance will have to be returned to the employer because it is unjust enrichment in accordance with the principle of dismissal invalidation. In addition, the main text of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act will have to be amended as follow: “When an employer intends to dismiss an employee (including dismissal for management reasons), he/she shall give the employee a notice of dismissal at least one month in advance of such dismissal, or, he/she shall pay such employee one month’s ordinary wage at the least.” Furthermore, it should be eliminated the unnecessary debate, and be maintained the protection of equal value and the principle of proportionality among employees who were dismissed. 근로기준법 제26조는 사용자가 근로자를 해고할 때, 30일 전에 해고예고를 하거나, 예고하지 않으면 통상임금의 30일분을 지급하도록 규정하고 있다. 이 규정은 근로자가 갑자기 사용자로부터 해고되어 일자리를 잃게 되면 생계가 어려워지는 것을 보호하기 위함이다. 사용자는 해고되는 근로자에게 해고예고를 하든지, 아니면 해고예고수당을 지급하든지 선택할 수 있다. 사용자가 해고예고를 하면 근로자는 해고예고기간에도 근로제공 의무가 있으며, 사용자는 근로자의 근로제공으로 인한 경제적 이익을 얻을 수 있다. 그런데도 사용자는 근로자에게 해고예고를 하지 않고, 해고예고수당을 지급하면서 경제적 이익을 포기할 때가 많다. 그 이유는 근로자에 대한 신뢰가 너무 크게 훼손되어 계속하여 고용하기가 어려울 때가 많기 때문이다. 따라서 사용자는 벌칙을 면하기 위하여 해고예고수당을 지급한다. 사용자의 해고가 부당하다고 결정되면, 그 해고는 효력이 없어져서 무효가 되고, 근로자는 원직에 복직한다. 근로자가 복직하여 다시 일하게 된다면 새로운 일자리를 구할 필요가 없어졌으므로, 해고예고수당을 지급할 필요도 없어진다. 그런데도 해고예고수당을 지급하는 것은 해고예고제도의 취지에 벗어난다. 해고가 무효라면 그 법률효과는 근로자와 사용자에게 똑같이 적용되어야 한다. 그런데 근로자에게는 해고 무효의 효과가 적용되어 근로관계가 원상회복되고, 사용자에게는 여전히 해고의 효력을 인정하여 해고예고수당을 지급하라는 것도 공평하지 못하다. 또한, 해고예고수당을 받은 근로자는 해고예고를 받은 근로자에 비하여 해고예고수당만큼의 경제적 이익을 더 누리게 된다. 이것은 근로자들 사이에도 공평하지 못하다. 따라서 부당한 해고로 결정되어 근로자가 사업장에 복직하면, 해고예고수당은 해고무효의 법리에 따라 부당이득이 되므로 사용자에게 돌려주어야 할 것이다. 그리고 근로기준법 제26조의 본문을, “사용자는 근로자를 해고(경영상 이유에 의한 해고를 포함한다)하려면 적어도 1개월 전에 예고하거나, 1개월분 이상의 통상임금을 지급하여야 한다.”라고 개정하여, 불필요한 논쟁을 없애고, 해고되는 근로자들 사이에서도 동일한 가치보호와 비례성이 유지되어야 할 것이다.

영국 고용조정제도의 전개(1945~1997)

신원철 ( Shin Wonchul ) 한국사회사학회 2020 사회와 역사 Vol.0 No.126

2차 대전 전까지 영국의 노동운동은 ‘일할 권리’를 요구했지만, 고용주를 상대로 고용보호를 요구하지는 않았다. 전시노무동원 체제하에서 노동이동의 자유와 사용자의 채용 및 해고의 자유가 모두 제한되었고, 감원 과정에 대한 샵스튜어드의 개입이 시작되었다. 하지만 2차대전 이후 완전고용에 대한 폭넓은 사회적 합의가 존재하는 상황에서도 영국의 노동운동은 고용보호를 요구하지 않았다. 해고수당이나 해고절차를 법률적으로 규제하는 것에 대해서 TUC(영국 노총)는 반대했으며, 단체교섭을 통한 규제 방안에 대해서도 통일되지 못했다. 1956년 자동차산업의 정리해고 반대 파업을 계기로 감원 절차에 대한 협의 및 해고 보상 요구가 노동조합의 중요 정책이 되었다. 1965년의 해고수당법은 해고수당을 둘러싼 교섭이 확산되는 계기가 되었다. 노동조합이 조직되어 있는 공공부문과 대기업에서는 법정해고수당과 별도로 추가해 고수당의 지급이 관행화되었다. 추가해고수당의 지급과 함께 감원의 주요 수단으로 희망퇴직 관행이 늘어났고, 이를 통해서 감원대상자 선발기준으로서 선임권원리(LIFO)의 비중은 후퇴했다. 희망퇴직 관행과 추가해고수당의 지급은 고용조정의 기업분절적 특징을 강화시켰다. 희망퇴직이 종종 조기은퇴와 결합되어 진행되었는데, 이는 기업단위의 직업연금이 확대되었기 때문에 가능했다. 고용조정 및 해고보상이 기업분절적으로 불균등하게 이루어짐에 따라서 1980년대 실업보험의 심각한 축소에 관해서 정책 당국에 대한 저항도 거의 일어날 수 없었다. Before World War II, the British labor movement demanded the right to work but not employment protection from employers. Under the war-time labor mobilization regime, the workers’ freedom of labor mobility and employers’ rights to hire and dismiss workers at will, were restricted. Shop steward's intervention and involvement in the workforce reduction processes also began. However, even with widespread social consensus on full employment, the British labor movement did not seek employment protection or layoff restrictions. TUC opposed legal regulations of statutory redundancy pay and dismissal procedures. British unions also failed to reach unified and agreed-upon policies through collective bargaining. Only with the mass dismissal of the automobile industry in 1956 did negotiations on the employment reduction process and dismissal allowances became crucial issues in trade union policymaking. The Redundancy Payments Act of 1965 triggered negotiations over redundancy compensation. In the public sector and large corporations, where trade unions are organized, paying extrastatutory redundancy pay (ESRP) became customary. In addition, the payment of ESRP for voluntary redundancy increased as an essential means of employment reduction for large firms. As a result, the LIFO (last in, first out) practices lessened as the primary criterion for reduction selection. Voluntary redundancy practices and the payment of ESRP also strengthened the segmentation of employment adjustment. Voluntary redundancy often accompanied early retirement, made possible with the expansion of occupational pensions at the corporate level. As employment adjustment and dismissal compensations were segmented by each company, policymakers faced little resistance against the severe contraction of unemployment insurance in the 1980s.

OECD와 BRICS 국가의 법적 해고비용 추정

이진영(Jin Young Lee) 한국고용노사관계학회 2016 産業關係硏究 Vol.26 No.4

본 연구는 OECD와 BRICS 39개국의 근로자보호조항 및 노동시장 규제 자료를 취합하여 2015년 현재 시행 중인 각국의 해고예고와 해고수당 제도에 대해 소개한 후, 이를 바탕으로 국가별 법적 해고비용을 추정하였다. 해고비용을 지수화하지 않고 주당급여 단위의 직접비용 형태로 추정하였기 때문에 본 연구의 결과를 통해 국가 간 해고비용을 절대적으로 비교할 수 있다. 분석결과, 이탈리아가 39개국 중 가장 높은 17.22주의 해고비용을 지불하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 미국은 법적 해고비용이 0으로 추정되어 39개국 중 가장 낮았다. 이스라엘과 함께 공동 3위를 차지한 한국의 법적 해고비용은 14.74주로, OECD 평균인 7.79주에 비해 두 배 가까이 높았다. This paper estimates the cost of job security regulation of OECD and BRICS countries based on the countries‘ advanced notice and severance pay system in 2015. Following work by Heckman and Pagés(2004), I define the job security cost as the present discounted value of the sum of advanced notice and severance pay measured as weekly wages. The estimation of the direct cost of the job security regulation allows comparison of the cost against the countries. The results show that Italy pays the highest job security cost (17.21 weeks of pay) and the United States does the lowest (0.00) among the 39 countries. The job security cost of South Korea is 14.74 weeks of pay, which is twice as much as the average cost of OECD countries.

경영상 해고ㆍ휴업에서 근로자참가 보장

이태현 ( Tae Hyun Lee ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學論集 Vol.25 No.4

고용관계도 기업의 존속을 전제하므로 경영위기 시 해고와 휴업은 불가피하지만, 근로자 측에서 실체적 정당성을 확인하고 노사 간 양보로 경영위기를 극복하는 방안을 강구하기 위해서 근로자참가가 보장될 필요가 있다. 근로기준법이 경영해고의 절차적 요건으로 근로자대표와의 협의의무를 부과하고 있지만, 근로자대표의 선출절차, 권한 등 규정의 미비로 근로자 측의 참가가 실질적으로 보장되고 있지 않다. 2020. 10. 16. 경제사회노동위원회 근로자대표제 합의문은 상당부분 진일보한 내용을 담고 있지만, 근로자대표와 해고대상 근로자들 사이 이해 관계가 대립하는 경우를 보완하기 위한 대비책이 필요하다. 경영해고에 대한 노동조합의 참가방식은 단체교섭을 통한 고용안정협약의 체결이 대표적이다. 경영해고의 경우, 경영권과 근로3권과의 비교형량을 통하여 경영권의 본질적 내용을 침해하지 않는 선에서 단체교섭이 허용될 필요가 있다. 고용안정협약의 규범적 효력으로 이를 위반한 해고는 정당성이 부정되지만, 규범적 효력을 문구 그대로 이해한다면 비조합원을 조합원에 우선 해고해야 문제가 발생한다. 비조합원과의 이해충돌, 고용안정협약의 해석상 모호성을 극복하려면, 그 내용을 가급적 구체화하고 제3자를 위한 계약으로 비조합원에게 그 효력을 확장하는 것이 필요하다. 해고와 달리 휴업에서는 고용관계가 불안정한 상태로 지속되어 근로자참가의 필요성이 높다. 휴업수당 감면승인 제도는 그로 인해 불이익을 입게 되는 근로자 측의 참가를 보장하지 않고 있지만, 현행법에 따르더라도 노동위원회의 휴업수당 감면승인으로 불이익을 입게 되는 근로자는 행정절차법상 이해관계인으로 청문절차에 참가가 가능하다. 입법적으로 경영휴업 및 휴업수당 감면승인에서 근로자대표제를 통한 참가를 보장하는 것이 바람직하다. 노동조합은 경영위기를 극복하기 위하여 임금의 포기ㆍ반납, 근로시간 단축, 퇴직금 지급기준의 변경 등 단체협약으로 근로조건을 불이익하게 변경시킨다. 이는 근로자들의 근로조건을 하향시키는 것이므로 근로조건의 유지ㆍ개선을 위하여 조직된 노동조합의 조직목적과 부합하지 않는 측면이 있다. 장기적인 관점에서 근로자에게 유리하다면 일시적 불이익변경도 가능하지만, 내용과 절차 측면에서 현저히 불합리하다면 효력이 부정될 것이다. Employment relationships also presuppose the existence of companies, so dismissal and closure are inevitable in the event of a management crisis, but workers’ participation needs to be guaranteed to check their substantive legitimacy and find ways to overcome the management crisis through concessions between labor and management. Although the Labor Standards Act imposes a consultation obligation with workers’ representatives as a procedural requirement for management dismissal, workers’ participation is not guaranteed due to insufficient regulations such as the selection process and authority of workers’ representatives. On October 16, 2020, the Economic, Social and Labor Commission’s agreement on the representative system of workers made significant progress, but preparations are needed to compensate for conflicts of interests between workers’ representatives and workers subject to dismissal. The union’s participation in management layoffs is representative of the conclusion of employment stability agreements through collective bargaining. In the case of management dismissal, collective bargaining needs to be allowed without infringing on the essential contents of management rights through comparative sentences with management rights and labor rights 3. The dismissal of non-union members is unjustified due to the normative effect of the Employment Security Convention, but if they understand the normative effect literally, problems arise only when non-union members are fired first. To overcome conflicts of interest with non-union members and the interpretation ambiguity of employment security agreements, it is necessary to specify the content as much as possible and extend its effectiveness to non-union members as contracts for third parties. Unlike layoffs, employment relations continue to be unstable in closures, so there is a high need for workers to participate. Although the system does not guarantee the participation of workers who are disadvantaged by it, workers who are disadvantaged by the Labor Relations Commission’s approval of the suspension allowance can participate in the hearing process as stakeholders under the Administrative Procedures Act. Legislatively, it is desirable to guarantee participation through the worker representation system in approval of reduction or exemption of management leave and closure allowance. In order to overcome the management crisis, the labor union shall change the working conditions to disadvantageous conditions through collective agreements, such as waiving or returning wages, shortening working hours, and changing standards for payment of severance pay. This lowers the working conditions of workers, which does not conform to the organizational purpose of the labor union organized to maintain and improve working conditions. Temporary disadvantage changes are also possible if they are advantageous to workers from a long-term perspective, but their effectiveness will be denied if they are significantly unreasonable in terms of content and procedures.

1950년대 고용조정의 법규범과 현실 : 조선방직과 대한조선공사 사례

신원철 지역사회학회 2014 지역사회학 Vol.15 No.4

The first Labor Standard Act established in 1953 during the Korean War includeda clause regulating unfair dismissals and also stipulated on the dismissal allowance, the business suspension allowance and the severance pay. Since Japanese colonial period Korean workers made similar demands against employers’ arbitrary dismissals. Facing with collective dismissals, both workers at the Chosun Textile Company. and at the KSEC shipyard tried to secure the allowance for dismissal and the severance pay in 1950s. Employers, however, would not abide by these legal norms on workforce reductions. so the actual practices of collective dismissals were far from the provisions of the Labor Standard Act. Right after the April Revolution in 1960, workers dismissed from Chosun Textile Company in 1950s expressed their complaints and anger. They began to organize a series of demonstrations demanding for those rewards. The KSEC shipyard workers also focused on demanding dismissal allowance and severance pay during the employment crisis in 1960. In 1950s South Korean labor movements could not develop policies for social insurance for unemployment, which were useful devices for consolidating workers’ solidarities beyond enterprise level unionism. 한국전쟁 중인 1953년에 제정된 근로기준법은 부당한 해고를 제한하는 조항과 해고수당, 휴업수당, 퇴직금 등 고용조정과 관련된 규정을 포함하고 있었다. 식민지 시기부터 노동운동은 고용주의 일방적인 감원조치에 맞서서 유사한 요구들을 제기해왔다. 1950년대에 감원에 직면한 조선방직과 대한조선공사의 노동자들은 해고수당과 휴업수당, 그리고 퇴직금을 확보하기 위해서 노력했다. 하지만 고용주들은 이러한 고용조정의 법규범을 지키려 하지 않았고, 감원이 이루어진 실제 관행은 법규범과 거리가 멀었다. 이승만 정권 아래서 법에 규정된 보상조차 받지 못하고 해고된 조선방직 노동자들의 불만과 분노는 4·19 혁명 직후 해고수당과 퇴직금을 요구하는 일련의 시위로 표출되었다. 1960년의 고용위기에 직면한 대한 조선공사 노동자들의 관심도 해고수당과 퇴직금의 확보에 모아졌다. 1950년대의 노동운동은 기업별 노동조합을 넘어서서 노동자들의 연대를 강화하는 유용한 장치가 될 수 있었던 실업보험 관련 정책을 발전시킬 수 없었다.

통상임금 법리의 이원화(二元化) — 가산임금 외의 ‘다른 수당’ 산정시의 통상임금 법리 —

방강수 한양대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

The dispute over ordinary wages, the main issue of the labor law, is precisely the ‘additional wage’ dispute under Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act. Although the 2013 Supreme Court en banc decision presented a long-term legal principle, the dispute over the scope of ordinary wages is complicated. However, ordinary wages are not used as criteria wages in the case of additional wages. It is also used for advance notice of dismissal pay, annual leave wages, maternity leave benefits, child-care leave benefits and the minimum limit of average wage(hereinafter referred to as ‘other allowances’). Under the Labor Standards Act of 1953, ordinary wages were used only for additional wages(Since 1961, the use of ordinary wages has been expanded to other allowances). In the first place, ordinary wages were born as a tool concept for additional wages. Ordinary wages for calculating additional wages need to be fixed in advance. The so-called ‘fixedness’ is needed. In this case, the ordinary wage must be essentially converted to a hourly wages. However, in the case of other allowances, fixedness is not necessary. Also, other allowances are not close to the hourly wage. Additional wages and other allowances differ in their history and function. Therefore, it is not necessary to equate the principle of ordinary wages in additional wages and other allowances. In the case of vacation or leave of absence, you may consider the period as working and pay the wages. There is no need to use the tool concept of additional wages. Rather, the use of tool concepts results in unreasonable results. Ordinary wages, which are the criteria wages for other allowances, include all wages ‘decided to be paid for contractual work’, except for overtime pay. Regular bonuses, holiday bonuses, homecoming fee, summer vacation expenses, etc., all of which were denied ordinary wages in accordance with the 2013 Supreme Court en banc decision, will also be included. The ordinary wage laws in calculating other allowances should be simplified. 노동법의 주요 이슈인 통상임금 분쟁은, 정확히 말하면 근로기준법 제56조의 ‘가산임금’ 분쟁이다. 2013년 전원합의체 판결이 장문의 법리를 제시했음에도, 통상임금의 범위를 둘러싼 다툼은 복잡하다. 그런데 통상임금은 가산임금의 경우에만 기준임금으로 사용되는 것은 아니다. 해고예고수당, 연차휴가임금, 출산휴가급여, 육아휴직급여, 평균임금의 최저한도 보장(이하 ‘다른 수당’)에서도 사용된다. 1953년 근로기준법에서 통상임금은 오로지 가산임금에서만 사용되었다(1961년부터 다른 수당으로 통상임금의 사용이 확대되었다). 애초에 통상임금은 가산임금의 도구개념으로 탄생한 것이다. 가산임금 산정을 위한 통상임금은 사전에 확정될 필요가 있다. 이른바 ‘고정성’이 필요하다. 이 경우 통상임금은 본질적으로 시간급으로 환산되어야 한다. 그러나 다른 수당의 경우에는 고정성이 반드시 필요한 것이 아니다. 또한 다른 수당은 시간급과 친하지도 않다. 가산임금과 다른 수당은 그 연혁이나 기능에서 차이가 있다. 따라서 가산임금과 다른 수당에서의 통상임금 법리를 동일하게 볼 필요는 없다. 휴가나 휴직의 경우에는 그 기간을 근로한 것으로 간주하여 임금을 지급하면 된다. 가산임금의 도구개념을 사용할 필요가 없다. 오히려 도구개념을 사용하게 되면 불합리한 결과가 발생한다. 다른 수당의 기준임금인 통상임금에는, 연장근로수당 등을 제외하고 ‘소정근로에 대하여 지급하기로 정한’ 모든 임금이 포함된다. 2013년 전원합의체 판결의 법리에 따라 통상임금성이 부정됐던 정기상여금・명절상여금・귀성비・여름휴가비 등도 모두 포함된다. 다른 수당 산정시의 통상임금 법리는 간명해야 한다.

영국 조선산업의 쇠퇴와 감원(1945~2000)

신원철 ( Shin Wonchul ) 한국산업노동학회 2020 산업노동연구 Vol.26 No.2

2차대전 이후 영국 조선산업은 일본, 독일, 스웨덴과 경쟁에 밀리면서 시장경쟁력을 상실했다. 영국 조선소들은 1950년대 말 이후 지속적인 구조조정 및 감원의 압력에 노출되었다. 정부의 막대한 공적 자금이 투입되어도 기업의 경영실적은 호전되지 않았다. 조선산업의 노동조합들의 다수는 19세기 이래 강한 크래프트 전통을 지녔는데, 감원에 대한 통일적인 정책을 갖고 있지 못했고, 법률을 통해서 해고를 규제하는데 소극적이었다. 조선산업의 크래프트 유니온들은 자유롭게 해고할 수 있는 경영자의 권한에 도전하지 않았다. 이로 인해서 노동운동은 고용조정과 관련한 제도적 자원을 확보할 수 없었다. 1970년 UCS 감원은 희망퇴직을 활용해서 이루어졌지만, 해고 노동자들에 대한 구직서비스나 재훈련프로그램 등은 진행되지 않았다. 1971-2년의 UCS 워크인은 일할 권리를 내세운 감원반대 투쟁이 성공을 거둔 사례였지만, 고용조정의 규칙과 장치에는 특별한 변화가 없었다. 1977년 국영 브리티시조선 출범 이후1978년 조선해고수당법에 근거한 희망퇴직이 대거 이루어졌다. 대처 정부 출범 이후에는 민영화와 더불어 보다 강압적인 방식으로 감원이 추진되었다. 감원에 반대하는 파업에 참여한 노동자에게 해고수당을 받을 수 있는 자격을 박탈하는 법률로 인해서 효과적인 저항도 조직되기 어려웠다. 숙련노동자와 미숙련노동자의 분열이나 조선소간 수주 경쟁 등으로 조선소 폐쇄에 노동조합들이 통일적으로 대응하는 것은 가능하지 않았다. The British shipbuilding industry lost its competitive edge and handed over the shipbuilding market to Japan, Germany and Sweden after the Word War Ⅱ. British shipyards continued to be under the pressures of restructuring and redundancies since the late 1950s. Even if the government’s public funds were poured into, the management performance of the industry did not improve. Many labour unions in the shipyards, which had strong craft traditions since 19th century, did not have a uniform policy on redundancy, being reluctant in regulating collective dismissals through legislation. The craft unions did not challenge managers’ rights over free dismissal. As a result, the workers’ movement was unable to secure institutional resources concerning redundany or employment adjustment procedures. In 1970, job cuts were made using voluntary redundancy in the UCS, but there were no replacement services or retraining programs for redundant workers at all. The UCS work-in of 1971-2 was a no-redundancy struggle demanding the right to work, resulting with great success. However, labour unions could not change the rules and arrangements of employment adjustment in the shipyards. After the establishment of the state-run British Shipbuilder in 1977, happened a great deal of voluntary redundancy supported by the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. When Thatcher took in office, the government promoted privatization of the shipyards. pushing redundancy more repressively, Worker’s resistance was also difficult to organize due to laws that disqualified workers from redundancy payments for participating in strikes against redundancy. Because of divisions between the skilled and the unskilled workers, and competitions for orders between shipyards, it was difficult for shipyard unions to respond against shipyard closures in unity.

해고예고제도의 법적쟁점

김다영 노동법이론실무학회 2014 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.13

Labor Standard Act “Article 26” regulates about “Advance Notice of Dismissal” that “When an employer intends to dismiss a worker (including dismissal for managerial reason), he/she shall give the worker a notice of dismissal at least 30 days in advance of such dismissal, and, if the employer fails to give such advance notice, he/she shall pay that worker ordinary wages for not less than 30 days”. According to the Constitutional Court, the purpose of implementing Advance Notice of Dismissal is to grant some minimum time for the employees from sudden dismissal and to alleviate economic burden ; however, the Act does not protect the labor relationship between the employer and the employee and is not related to the fundamental elements of protecting the workers. Based on this position, until now the Constitution Court has judged that violating advance notice of discharge is irrelevant to effect of discharging the employees, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor has also managed until now that even if the Advance Notice of Dismissal has not been made in advance before 30 days, once the Advance Notice of Dismissal Payment has been made, the legal Advance Notice of Dismissal is still valid. However, once the lawmaker has regulated the function of Advance Notice Dismissal as different from other strict dismissal regulatory functions in the Labor Standard Act, by paying Advance Notice of Dismissal Payment, in substitution for the Advance Notice of Dismissal or the effect of discharging, there is no reason to make difference between the effect of advance notice of dismissal regulation and written notice of regulation. Therefore, the notice of discharge must notice 30 days in advance. Once violated, the payment for Advance Notice of Discharge must be made and at the same time dismissal must be invalid. Punishment must not be made once violating the advance notice dismissal or payment of Advance Notice of Dismissal, hence, when the charge for Advance Notice of Dismissal is not made, it is appropriate to make the punishment. On the other hand, although the written Advance Notice of Dismissal and the system on Advance Notice of Dismissal are equal expressions for dismissal, in order to get rid of the controversy of having two separate regulations, documenting Advance Notice of Dismissal by indicating the reason for dismissal and the dismissal period in writing which has the same effect as doing Advance Notice of Dismissal in writing. Both policies are complementary policies for expression for dismissal, and are valid method of legislation or still additional conditions of regulation, yet the regulations still have interpretation dispute which need further improvement. Other than the policy on the Advance Notice of Dismissal, there are other exceptions for regulations as well for application of other legal controversy, which need more unitary interpretation and would require more continuous discussion in the future. Furthermore, the writer hopes that through legal organization and plentiful interpretation, ultimately the policy on Advance Notice of Dismissal is not a mere simple policy yet would become a fundamental policy for proper procedure for dismissal of employees.

休業手當의 支給要件에 대한 小考

김경태(Kim Kyong-Tae) 한국비교노동법학회 2010 노동법논총 Vol.20 No.-

경제불황기 정리해고와 노동자의 대응

이병례(Ree Byung Rye) 역사비평사 2010 역사비평 Vol.- No.90

This paper covered the counteractions of laborers on the layoffs in economic depression that is emerging as the keenest problem in labor community presently in comparison with colonial period. Various measures that capitalists attempt during economic depression share similarities to present and include also difference of the era. The point they have in common is that capitalists attribute decrease of profit or managerial crisis entirely to laborers. Laborers took measures like cutting of operation hour and conversion of permanent positions to temporary ones as well as mass layoffs, and attempted to avoid the resistance of laborers through 'disguised closing of business' oftentimes. Presently, layoff of capitalist is backed by intention to weaken labor union as well as by economic motivations. Also during colonial period, large companies attempted to trim out 'labor union members' often by dismissing although the need for layoff was not significant economically. The difference between the present and colonial period is the presence of the legal, institutional measures for unlawful dismissal. Presently, labor protection law prevents dismissal by no justifiable reason, and dismissal requires prior warning. Laborers during colonial period were liable to dismissal at any time with no advance notice upon the need of capital while no legal protection measure is available. Meantime, during colonial period is characterized with vivid exposure of ethnic problems occurring in the course of layoff process. In case Joseon people and Japanese were to work in the same work field, Japanese were left out, and only Joseon people were often laid off. While ethnic problems surfaced at the front at such critical moment, laborers strongly demanded abolition of ethnic discrimination. A pro-active counteraction against layoff is to block dismissal through strike, which frequently occurs upon layoff in various work field presently. Laborers during colonial days also strove to block dismissal through allied strike in the midst of rugged situation. In addition, the demand of 'sharing of work positions' that laborers are claiming presently was first launched during colonial days. In particular, laborers during colonial period conducted fights of obtaining dismissal allowance. The fight of obtaining dismissal allowance was a political fight to extend the rights of laborers while simultaneously demanding economic shares.