경영상 이유에 의한 해고에 대한 소고

노병호(Roh Byoung Ho) 한국비교노동법학회 2009 노동법논총 Vol.16 No.-

Dismissal for management reasons means dismissal of a worker by an employer for managerial reasons shall be based on urgent managerial needs. Dismissal for managerial reasons are different from general dismissal for workers responsibility or disciplinary dismissal. As the dismissal based on urgent managerial needs Which is inevitable or employer responsibility occurred on a massive scale in a dull season that menace to employment security and will have a big impact on our society. So that should be regulated more strictly than other dismissal. Labor standards act §24 regulate on necessary conditions of dismissal for managerial reasons. The contents are as follows. ① Dismissal of a worker by an employer for managerial reasons shall be based on urgent managerial needs. ② An employer shall make every effort to avoid dismissal of workers. ③ An employer shall select workers to be dismissed by establishing rational and fair criteria for dismissal. ④ With regard to the possible methods for avoiding dismissal and the criteria for dismissal, an employer shall give a notice to a trade union or to a person representing the majority of all workers and have a good faith consultation. If the necessary conditions could not be possessed, the dismissal, as have no justifiable reasons, will crease to be valid. However, if one of this necessary conditions could not be possessed. As a dismissal for managerial reasons, it is become an issue that this case dismissal could not come into effect. Although we consider an institutional purpose of dismissal for managerial reasons and this dismissal is not occurred by workers responsibility and our social supporting system for dismissal workers is frail, necessary conditions of dismissal for managerial reasons are filled reasonably.

경영상 해고의 제한에 관한 판례 법리의 재정립 ― 대법원 2002. 7. 9. 선고 2001다29452 판결을 중심으로 ―

조용만 한국노동법학회 2017 노동법학 Vol.0 No.64

The Labor Standards Act stipulates the substantive and procedural requirements of dismissal for economic reasons. The Supreme Court, however, takes a passive and vague attitude when it comes to judging whether dismissal for economic reasons is justified. The purpose of this paper is to identify the problems of judicial precedents and to find alternatives for the reestablishment of desirable legal principles. The key points of this article are summarized as follows. First, dismissal for economic reasons is dismissal on the grounds of business circumstances not liable to employees. This should include not only layoffs for the maintenance of the enterprise but also dismissal for the abolition of the business. Second, the four requirements for economic dismissal should be seen as separate requirements. It is not right to treat the four requirements as an interrelated and comprehensive requirement, as this is against the law. Third, in case of economic dismissal, the necessity of protection of workers is bigger than general dismissal. Therefore, urgent management needs should be interpreted more strictly, and should be limited to cases of high management crises, serious economic difficulties, and other severe business conditions. Fourth, the method and degree of effort to avoid dismissal by the employer before dismissal must be proportional to the capacity of the employer, such as the size of the enterprise. And a way to maintain working relationships prior to the voluntary retirement that results in loss of employment should be pursued. Fifth, the reasonable and fair criteria for selecting employees to be dismissed should be regarded as standards in which both the criteria considering the worker's interests and the criterion considering the employer's interests have equal values. Finally, the consultation process with the representatives of the employees should be strictly interpreted as a requirement to ensure that economic dismissals meet the substantive requirements. If the procedural requirement is not met, the effect of dismissal must be denied.

우리나라 경영해고의 현황과 과제

전형배(田亨培) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2013 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.34

계약관계의 해지는 당사자의 합의가 없는 한 통상 일방당사자의 귀책사유를 전제로 하여 타방 당사자가 해지권을 행사함으로써 이뤄진다. 근로계약의 해지인 해고도 마찬가지 법리가 적용되어 근로자의 귀책사유가 없는 한 사용자는 일방적으로 해고할 권한을 갖지 않는다. 이러한 원칙적인 법이론에 비추어 보면 회사의 경영이 어렵다는 사용자의 경제적 사정만을 고려하여 근로계약을 일방적으로 해지할 수 있도록 하는 경영해고는 매우 예외적인 성질을 갖는 제도라고 이해할 수 있다. 제도의 예외적이고 일방적인 특성을 고려하면 경영해고의 요건 및 관련 쟁점을 해결하기 위한 해석론은 마땅히 엄격하여야 할 것으로 보이는데 대법원은 2002년 예술의 전당 사건과 하나은행 사건이 이후 매우 유연한 해석론을 유지하면서 사용자의 경영해고권한을 폭넓게 보장하여 왔다. 이런 법이론 혹은 법정책은 근로기준법이 규정한 법문과는 다른 경영해고의 효력요건에 관한 판례를 집적하는 데 큰 역할을 하였는바 이 논문에서는 경영해고의 4요건에 관하여 지난 10년간 대법원이 보여준 판례의 태도를 비판적인 입장에서 분석하였다. 아울러 경영해고와 관련하여 새롭게 제기되는 이슈인 고용안정협약의 효력과 해고 동의조항에 관한 대법원의 판례 법리도 검토하였는데 이 2가지 쟁점에 관해서는 종전의 경직된 태도를 다소 완화하여 사안에 따라는 고용안정협약의 효력과 해고 동의조항의 효력을 긍정하고 있다. 따라서 그 유형을 구분하여 판례의 흐름을 검토하고 법리상 문제점을 제시하고자 하였다. Dismissal by Reason of Redundancy forms a distinct category within the law governing termination of employment, viewed in the light that the termination arises out of the failure or economic difficulty of the employers without any liability of employees. Considering this peculiarity, a strict interpretation of justification theory on the dismissal by reason of redundancy could be expected, but the Supreme Court’s decisions have showed very flexible criterion on the evaluation of justification. This attitude have given the employers a lot discretion to decide whether they conduct the redundancy dismissals and how they practice them, while it may impinge on the employee’s right to work. This paper analyses the logics of Supreme Court’s decisions concerned and presents their theoretical and practical problems, showing that its interpretations may not fall within the languages of the Standard Labour Act article 24; urgent managerial necessity, effort to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair criterion for the selection of those persons subject to dismissal, and duty to inform and consult with the employee representative. This paper also introduces new issues about the employment protection clause and consent clause on dismissal in collective agreement which address some complex problems connected with the redundancy dismissal.

경영상 해고에 관한 대법원 판례 분석과 평가

박은정(Park, Eun-Jeong) 한국노동법학회 2015 노동법학 Vol.0 No.53

This article is critical of the viewpoint of the courts on the cases of economic dismissals and organizes and analyses precedents from the Supreme Court case(66Do204) in 1966 where the concept of economic dismissals was first introduced, through the Supreme Court case(87DaKa2132) having established the 4-requirements-system for economic dismissals, to the recent Supreme Court cases to analyze and evaluate the process of change. To sum up, the process of change starts from the conceptualization of economic dismissal→the establishment of requirements of economic dismissal→the relaxation of the requirement of urgent necessity in management→the request for the overall and comprehensive consideration about the requirements of economic dismissal→the re-relaxation of the requirement of urgent necessity in management up to now. This paper analyzes and evaluates the precedents leading such changes and reviews the rulings influenced thereby with priority given to the requirements of economic dismissal.

기업회생절차상 정리해고 판결의 부당성 - 대상판결: 대법원 2014.11.13. 선고 2012다14517 판결, 대법원 2014.11.13. 선고 2014다20875, 20882 판결 -

박승두 한국사회법학회 2017 社會法硏究 Vol.0 No.33

Ssangyong Motorcar Ltd.’s labor Dismissal(hereafter, Ssangyong’s precedent) is the typical case that company conducted Corporate Reorganization Proceedings under Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. In case of Dismissal for Managerial Reasons on Corporate Reorganization, which is ruled by article 24, Labor Standard Act, it is recognized to be adopted following conditions for general companies: ① emergence for managerial reasons, ② effort to avoid the dismissal, ③ reasonable and fair criteria, ④ consult in good faith with the labor union or represents. Nonetheless, there are various controversies regarding the application for company on rehabilitation proceedings as Ssangyong case, lack of clear regulation and interpretation causes many critics. In this regard, this paper seeks to analyze the issues of Ssangyong case’s precedent to prevent the expecting conflicts. Upon the examination, Ssangyong’s precedent appears to have following problems in each condition. First, ‘emergence for managerial reasons’, which has been raised by original judge was admitted without careful investigation regardless it should be analyzed with necessity of redundancy. Second, regarding effort to avoid the dismissal, it was recognized by the court, there was no cut of wages of executive members; reversely outsourcing staffs have confronted downsizing. Furthermore, labor union’s suggestion, jog sharing, has been ignored. More importantly, unpaid vacation is initiated after the redundancy. In that sense, it seems difficult to conclude that company’s effort was enough. Third, criteria for selection of dismissal was admitted in first instance, no mention in appeal and final courts. Put it another way, there is a question for carefulness. Finally, consultant with labor union was counted in both of first instance and appeal court, no argument in final court. However, it can be invalidity of the collective agreement due to the circumstance that labor union refuse the redundancy. 채무자회생법상 회생절차를 진행하는 기업이 노동자를 정리해고한 것으로는 쌍용자동차 주식회사(이하 ‘쌍용자동차’라 한다) 정리해고 사건(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 한다)이 대표적이다. 회생절차상 정리해고의 경우에도 근로기준법 제24조(경영상 이유에 의한 해고의 제한)에서 규정한 ① 긴박한 경영상의 필요(제1항), ② 해고를 피하기 위한 노력(제2항), ③ 합리적이고 공정한 기준에 따른 선정(제2항), ④ 노동조합(근로자대표)와의 성실한 협의(제2항) 등 4가지 요건이 적용되는 점은 일반기업의 경우와 마찬가지이다. 그러나 회생절차상 정리해고의 경우에는 이러한 요건의 충족 여부를 둘러싸고 많은 논의가 제기되고 있으며, 대상판결에서 크게 쟁점이 되었지만 명확하게 해석기준이 확립되지 못하여 아직도 많은 비판이 따르고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 이 연구는 대상판결의 문제점을 상세히 분석함으로써, 향후 계속 발생할 가능성이 높은 유사 사건의 해결에 도움이 되고자 하였다. 대상판결을 근로기준법상 정리해고 4 요건의 기준에서 검토한 결과, 다음과 같은 문제점들이 확인되었다. ① ‘긴박한 경영상의 필요’에 관하여 대상판결은 경영의 긴박성 존재 여부에 관하여 원심판결이 제기한 의문을 검증하지 아니한 채 이를 인정하였고, 설령 경영의 긴박성이 존재한다고 하더라도 이것과 정리해고 필요성의 크기를 상호 비교하여야 하는데 이를 이행하지 아니하였다. ② ‘해고회피 노력’에 관하여 대상판결은 쌍용자동차는 해고회피노력을 다한 것으로 판단하였지만, 노동자 전체에 대한 임금 삭감이나 경영상 책임이 있는 임원의 수를 줄이고 보수를 삭감하는 등의 조치를 취하지 아니하고 가장 힘없는 비정규직 노동자인 사내협력업체 인원만 축소하였을 뿐만 아니라, 노동조합의 일자리 나누기 제안까지 거부하였고, 무급휴직 조치도 정리해고 이후에 행하였다는 점을 감안하여 볼 때, 정리해고 전에 이를 피하기 위한 노력은 매우 미흡한 것으로 판단된다. ③ ‘해고대상자 선정기준의 합리성과 공정성’에 관하여는, 제1심 판결은 이 사건 정리해고 기준은 합리적이고 공정한 것으로 판단된다고 보았고, 2심 판결에서는 이에 대한 별다른 문제제기가 없었고, 대상판결도 언급하지 아니하였다. 그러나 해고대상자 선정기준의 합리성과 공정성을 더욱 철저히 분석하여야 하는데 이를 경시한 문제가 있다. ④ ‘노동조합과의 성실한 협의’에 관하여는, 1심과 2심 판결 모두 노동조합과의 성실한 협의를 다하였다고 판단하였고, 대상판결은 상고이유가 아니라는 이유로 판단하지 아니하였다. 그러나 회사는 정리해고를 당연시하고 노동조합은 이를 거부하는 상황에서, 단체협약에 노사합의가 있어야 시행할 수 있도록 규정되어 있음에도 불구하고, 노사간에 원만한 협의가 되지 않는다는 이유로 회사가 일방적으로 시행하는 것은 단체협약의 위반으로 무효라고 보아야 한다.

영국의 경영상 해고와 시사점

전형배 노동법이론실무학회 2014 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.13

Under British Employment Rights Acts 1996 s 139(1), an employee is dismissed for redundancy where the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to: (a) the fact that the employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by it, or has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed ; or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where they were so employed, have ceased or diminished, or are expected to cease or diminish. When a employer dismisses employees by reason of redundancy, he or she should consult with authorized representatives of recognized trade union when even only one employee of the class for which the union is recognized is to be made redundant. The remedy for the failure to comply with the duty to consult lies in the protective award. And the redundant employees have the right to get redundancy payment which is calculated based on the week’s pay. Compared to the British redundancy system, the compliance with legal procedures and compensation for dismissed employees should be underlined in Korean system.

休業手當의 支給要件에 대한 小考

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