http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 심재진(Shim, Jae Jin) (검색결과 65 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
심재진,이상윤 ( J . J . Shim,S . Y . Lee ) 한국열처리공학회 1991 熱處理工學會誌 Vol.4 No.3
The effects of austenitizing temperatures and times and cooling rate on the characteristics of continuous air cooling have been investigated for 0.3%C-Mn steels microalloyed with vanadium, Transformation start temperatures have been found to be measured from temperature-time curve directly obtained with continuous air cooling and to decrease with increasing austenitizing temperature, cooling rate and Mn contents. The coarsening behavior of austenite grain size has been measured to abnormally grow at 1050℃ and rapidly grow at 1200℃. It has been found that the volume fraction of pearlite was linealy proportional to the reciprocal square root of austenite grain size. The hardness has been measured to increase with increasing cooling rate up to 250℃/min, and to remain relatively unchanged in the range of 250∼400℃/min. showing that hardness valves for steel with a higher Mn content increase more than those for steel with a lower Mn content. The impact property has been found to decrease with increasing of austenite grain size but does not linealy change with the reciprocal square root of austenite grain size.
-
-
-
심재진(Jaejin Shim) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.34
This article examines case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) on part-time work. In the EU, protection of part-time workers is concerned with two kinds of law. One is sex discrimination law as, under the EU sex discrimination law, female part-time workers can challenge their disadvantages by means of the prohibition of indirect sex discrimination. Since 1981 the Court has applied former Article 119 of the Treaty and provisions of Community Directives on equal treatment between men and women at work since many more women than men work part-time. The 26 judgments so far made by the Court in relation to part-time workers are considered. They deals with various areas of employment relationship such as pay, career advancement, conditions of dismissal, occupational pension schemes and statutory social security allowances. The other law as to part-time work is the Part-time Workers' Directive, which is designed to directly protect part-time workers. The judgments by the Court on the Directive are just 2. Although it should be considered that the Directive came into force much later than sex discrimination law, the number is still very small. After scrutinizing all the judgments by the Court on part-time work and comparing the two regimes of law, this article has found that the prohibition of indirect sex discrimination has been the main regulatory regime of law on part-time work in the EU. This results from the fact that in the absence of direct regulation on part-time work, the Court progressively broadened the scope of indirect sex discrimination law, the result of which was that almost all areas of employment, occupational pension schemes, social security benefits were covered by the law. Moreover once it turns out that a workplace rule has a disparate impact on one sex, the Court establishes the proportionality test in which, in order to defend that a workplace rule with a disparate impact is objectively justified, an employer is required to prove that the workplace corresponds to a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. On the other hand, the Part-time Workers' Directive, applying to employment relationship alone, is narrower than sex discrimination law in terms of their scope. Also it does not specify whether a workplace rule which is less favourable to part-time workers than to full-time workers has to go through the proportionality test in order that it is objectively justified. As a result there have been few cases which the Court has to deal with in relation to the Directive. This finding might have some implications for the plan to increase the ratio of permanent part-time workers and their protection in Korea. Firstly it might suggest that it is important to consider that part-time employment is a domain in which women, who have to do part-time work because of their main responsibility for child care, are often discriminated against. Secondly, the European experience might indicate that we need the proportionality test rather than the reasonableness test to properly protect part-time workers from being discriminated against. Thirdly, we might need a comprehensive legal measure covering areas such as career development and social security, thus making people free to choose part-time work without fearing that they might be disadvantaged in their long-term career and later life.
-
심재진(Shim, Jaejin) 한국노동법학회 2020 노동법학 Vol.0 No.73
This article looks at how platform work is regulated in the UK labour law. What it paid attention to is that the personal scope of UK labour law varies among individual statutes of labour law and even among sections of an individual statute. Overall, UK labour and social security law has 5 categories of protected working people including employee and worker, This article puts its focus on whether, and, if any, how those working through on-line platform are protected according to such categories. Recently UK courts had to deal with the issue whether or not those working through on-line platform, such as Uber drivers and food deliverers of Deliveroo, are protected under relevant labour law. They are hardly treated as employees mainly on the grounds that their arrangement with a platform supplier lacks mutual obligation, which is required in order for the arrangement to be a contract. However the courts upheld that protection of both minimum wage and working time apply to Uber drivers since they are workers. Although the court denied mutual obligation of their engagement in relation to periods between individual assignments, it acknowleged such requirement in relation to periods during which separate assignments are being performed. This article shows that the worker category makes those working through on-line platform more likely to be protected than the employer one. This is due to the fact that the former requires only personal performance of work and Not-being-self-employed. It does not does not require the control test, which is regarded to be an essential element of the latter. There may be some lessons from the regulation of platform work in the UK labour law. The concept of an employee under Korean labour law is very narrow although it applies to almost all individual employment law. UK labour law might suggest that the personal scope of labour law does not have to be the same across all individual employment law. Moreover it might suggest that the some tests for an employee, such as mutual obligation and control, has to be abandoned in order to protect those working through on-line platform.
-
심재진(Jae jin Shim) 한국노동연구원 2013 노동정책연구 Vol.13 No.3
이 글은 미국과 유럽연합에서 고용상 적극적 조치의 정당성 판단에 대해 비교한다. 먼저 그 양 법제의 공통점으로 미국과 유럽연합이 모두 차별금지 혹은 평등대우의 예외로서 법적 정당성이 심사되고, 그 심사방식 또한 비례성 심사를 사용하고 있다는 점을 제시한다. 이러한 공통점과 함께 이 글은양 법제의 차이점을 제시한다. 그 차이점은 고용상 적극적 조치가 문제되는 사유별로 그 정당성의 범위와 내용에서 드러난다. 미국의 경우, 인종과 관련하여 적극적 조치가 문제될 뿐만 아니라 그 정당성 심사 또한 다른 사유보다 엄격하게 이루어진다. 유럽연합은 인종보다는 성과 관련된 적극적 조치에 대한 정당성이 문제되고 있으며, 미국과 달리 그 정당성 심사가 목적면에서 덜 엄격하다. 그 결과로 미국보다는 유럽연합의 법제하에서 고용상 적극적 조치가 상대적으로 폭넓게 허용될 수 있다. 더 나아가 이 글은 고용상 적극적 조치와 관련하여 양 법제의 비교를 통해 인종과 관련한 미국 고유의 역사에서 탄생한 적극적 조치의 정당성 논의는 이와는 다른 문화와 역사를 갖는 한국에서 참고하기가 쉽지 않다고 판단한다. 오히려 한국의 차별금지법제에서는 고용상 적극적 조치가 차별이 아니라고 규정하여 그 규정 방식이 유럽연합과 유사하다. 그런 점에서 이 글은 미국보다는 유럽연합의 정당성 논의가 한국에 시사하는 바가 클 수 있다는 점을 제시한다. The study is to look at how the case law of the EU in relation to positive action in employment is differentiated from that of the US. Focusing on the former, it aims to identify its similarities and differences of the EU case law in comparison with the US case law which much more attention has been drawn to in the scholarship of both labour law and constitutional law. To this end, the study analyses all the European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases concerned with positive action in employment. The US case law in relation to positive action in employment is briefly summarised to the extent it is meaningful enough to draw those similarities and differences. As This study will provide the significance of the EU case law in comparative labour law study in relation to positive action in employment. However it remains to be further explored what has made the EU law distinctive from the US law in the sphere of positive action in employment.
-
기간제법의 차별적 처우에서 ‘불리한 처우’와 ‘합리적인 이유’의 판단 — 대법원 2019. 9. 26. 선고 2016두47857 판결의 평석 —
심재진(Jaejin Shim) 한국비교노동법학회 2020 노동법논총 Vol.48 No.-
This article is aimed at reviewing a recent case of the Supreme Court. It looks at new principles of interpretation on Act on Employment Discrimination on the Grounds of Fixed-term Contract, etc.(AEDGFC) and evaluate them in terms of previous cases and academic commentaries on on the AEDGFC. Furthermore it analyses the established principle of interpretation on reasonablegrounds’ in the AEDGFC, the aabsence of which unfavorable treatment against fixed-term employees has to be unlawful discrimination under the AEDGFC. One of the new principles of interpretation on the AEDGFC is about how unfavorable treatment against fixed-term employees can be ascertained in the area of wages. The Supreme Court held that different types of wages such as basic salary various bonuses service tip must be categorized according to their nature where it is not suitable to compare each type of wages between fixed-term and permanent employees. It also held that whether reasonable grounds of unfavorable treatment against fixed-term employees exist must be decided according to each category of types of wages as a whole. On the one hand, these new principles of interpretation should be welcomed in that the methodology of finding unfavorable treatment against fixed-term employees are clearer. On the other hand, they may lead it more difficult that lower courts can decide that unfavorable treatment is not reasonable. There are two competing views on how reasonable grounds of unfavorable treatment should be established prohibition of arbitrary treatment principle and proportionality principle. The latter is stricter than the former and therefore harder than the former for an employer to prove that grounds of unfavorable treatment are reasonable. It seems that the principle of interpretation established on a previous case by the Supreme Court adopts the proportionality principle in a rather moderate sense. However it turned out that most courts including the Supreme Court in the current case have applied not this principle but the prohibition of arbitrary treatment principle to ascertaining reasonable grounds in their cases. Based on this finding it maintains that the nominal principle should be rigorously revived in order to make the AEDGFC more effective.
-
심재진(Jaejin Shim) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.35
Statistics concerned shows that complaints about age discrimination made to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea since the enforcement of the Korea Age Discrimination in Employment Act (KADEA) in 2009 are mainly concerned with recruitment, the practice of which in companies of Korea has been to explicitly put age limit on applicants for jobs. The actual confinement of the law to this kind of age discrimination in relation to recruitment leads us to ask why other age-related discriminatory practices in companies of Korea have not been addressed despite their prevalence in the Korean workplace. By means of comparison between the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (EEAR) 2006 of the UK and the KADEA, this article finds out three main features that probably give rise to the current state of the latter. The first is that whilst the proportionality test is used to objectively justify seemingly discriminatory treatment (in the case of direct discrimination) or a provision, criterion, practice putting persons of a particular at a particular disadvantage (in the case of indirect discrimination) in the EEAR 2006, the reasonableness test is provided for in the KADEA. The latter test is not as strict as the former test and accordingly directly or indirectly discriminatory practices are more likely to be justified. A redundancy case in which the Korean Supreme Court held that to use an age criterion to select those to be redundant was reasonable and accordingly justified shows that similar practices are to be justified under the KADEA. The second feature is concerned with indirect discrimination. In the UK, the provision of indirect discrimination is taken to require employers to objectively justify an age-related criterion, such as the length of service, as several cases shows although the EEAR 2006 weakens the prohibition of indirect age discrimination by exempting the criteria of length of service less than five years and allowing it to be used where it appears reasonable to employers that the way it is used fulfills a business need of their undertaking. However, to use the criteria of length of service is explicitly exempted under the provision of indirect discrimination of the KADEA. There has been no case in relation to indirect age discrimination. Thirdly, Korea's regulatory framework in which setting compulsory retirement age does not require any justification at all is contrasted with that of UK's default retirement age of 65 in which setting a retirement age under 65 must be objectively justified. Thus, the issue of compulsory retirement age is hardly within the scope of the KADEA. This is rather surprising given that, as the controversy on the default retirement age before the enactment of EEAR 2006 shows, one of the principal purposes of introducing age discrimination law is to raise, or remove, a retirement age, thus making people work longer. Just two years have passed since the enforcement of the KADEA. Despite this, this article concludes that it is doubtful that the KADEA, without its major defects above corrected by further amendment, will play an meaningful role as it was intented to. It is far from tackling discriminatory practices in relation to age, such as hidden age limit on recruitment, and economic dismissal on the grounds of age. In addition, it hardly regulates an retirement age in Korea which is rapidly nearing aged society from aging society.
-
ScienceON연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
