노동법상 근로자ㆍ사용자 개념 확대를 둘러싼 쟁점과 입법적 과제

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In recent years, as diversity in employment type proliferates, demands for amendment to labor law provisions which define the concept of employer and employee are being bought up. To study the validity of this argument, this paper begins with dividing the conditions where the concept of employer and employee matters in labor law into four categories. These are; first, the conditions where the question of so-called economically dependent contractor, who works in situations of which some of typical characteristics of traditional employer-employee relation (e.g. employers direct control and command over the employee) are dropped out, is an employee or not arises; second, the conditions where user company or principal company formally has direct control or direction over third party companys employee while avoiding all or some of responsibilities in labor law, legally or illegally, like in dispatched or temporary agency employee, or in-site subcontracting employee of the subcontractor; third, the conditions where the parent company determines indirectly terms and conditions of employment of the subsidiary company in business groups but abdicates responsibilities of labor law by taking advantage of the difference in formal legal entity; fourth, the conditions where in the event of business changes, the prospect acquisition company has de facto influence on the terms and conditions of employment of employee in target company while taking absolutely no responsibility in labor law.
This paper argues that it is impossible to solve legal problems that occur in these four conditions by amending the definition provisions of employer and employee in the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. It is because when approaching the problems in this way, contradiction of other provisions in the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act occurs, which would result in inconsistency in other laws.
To settle these problems reasonably, instead of amending employer and employee definition provisions of the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between special issues of each category, and to seek separate solutions in accordance with each condition.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 木南直之, "勞働組合法上の使用者槪念と團交事項" (119) : 2012

2 박수근, "한국노동법학회 자료집" 2001

3 김영문, "특수형태근로종사자의 집단적 이익대변 구조" 부설법학연구소 32 : 207-264, 2011

4 이승욱, "특수형태근로종사자의 법적 규율을 위한 입법적 모색" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (19) : 199-264, 2005

5 김재훈, "특수형태근로 종사자에 대한 법적 보호방안" (13) : 2002

6 강성태, "특수고용직의 노동법적 보호로자 판단방식의 변화를 중심으로" 한국노동연구원 7 (7): 93-117, 2007

7 윤애림, "산재보험법의 특수형태근로종사자 특례제도의 문제점과 대안" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (33) : 47-91, 2012

8 도재형, "사법과 입법의 사각지대, 특수형태근로종사자" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (34) : 197-244, 2013

9 이병희, "사내하도급에서 수급인 근로자에 대한 도급인의 노조법상 사용자책임" 51 : 2011

10 강성태, "사내하도급 삼부작 판결의 의의" 한국노동법학회 (35) : 1-36, 2010

11 장신철, "비정규직 범위와 규모에 대한 새로운 고찰" 한국고용노사관계학회 22 (22): 55-77, 2012

12 박수근, "레미콘운송기사와 경기보조원의 근로자성에 관한 검토―최근의 판례를 중심으로―" 한국노동법학회 (14) : 2002

13 박지순, "독일의 유사근로자의 유형과 노동법상 지위에 관한 연구" 한국노동연구원 2005

14 조경배, "독립노동과 유사근로자 그리고 위장자영인" 민주주의법학연구회 0 (0): 298-335, 2004

15 이철수, "노동법의 이론과 실천, 신인령선생님정년기념논문집" 박영사 2008

16 이병태, "노동법상 노동자의 개념"

17 김형배, "노동법(22판)" 박영사 2013

18 임종률, "노동법(11판)" 박영사 2013

19 김유성, "노동법 II" 법문사 1999

20 김형배, "노동법" 박영사 2006

21 박제성, "기업집단과 노동법" 한국노동연구원 2007

22 최영호, "계약근로형 노무공급자의 근로자성" 서울대학교노동법연구회 13 : 4-146, 2002

23 道幸哲也, "親會社の團交應諾義務ーなんのための團交權" (216) : 2007

24 Daekin & Morris, "Labour Law 5th ed" Hart Publishing 2009