학습지교사 판결을 둘러싼 노동조합법상 근로자성 판단기준 및 구제방안에 대한 검토 = A Review of Criteria for Determining Employee Status and Remedial Measures under the Labor Union Act Surrounding the Ruling of Home-study Teachers

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although a series of judicial precedents related to employees under the Labor Union Act argue that the scope of employee status under the Labor Union Act is broader than that of under the Labor Standards Act, there is irrationality and irony in the fact that, among all types of employed workers, only golf caddies have been recognized as employees in a broader scope than that of under the Labor Standards Act. Also, there have been criticisms that precedents have not presented specific and reasonable criteria for determining employee status under the Labor Union Act. Using the recent home-study teacher ruling as a precedent and referring to the Japanese theory of interpretation, this study aims to specify the criteria and methods for determining employee status under the Labor Union Act, and thereby clarify the difference between the Labor Standards Act (a relationship of human subordinacy) and Labor Union Act (a relationship of economic and organizational subordinacy). It is worth affirmatively noting that this ruling paved the way for employed persons who were previously not recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act (workers in special employment types) to be recognized as employees under the Labor Union Act, and therefore to be guaranteed the three fundamental labor rights. However, questions remain as to why legal principles waver according to labor union types and employment status, despite the fact that there is only one legal provision related to employees under the Labor Union Act (Article 1, Clause 2 of Labor Union Act). This leads to a clearly ironic situation in which, in case of super-industrial labor unions, the employee status of unemployed persons and job seekers becomes stronger than that of employed persons. This may be the result of taking into account the reality in South Korea that once employee status is recognized under the Labor Union Act, the worker is immediately guaranteed all three fundamental labor rights, and therefore counterparties must be assumed during collective bargaining, bargaining agreements, and labor disputes. In the future, this issue must be supplemented with legislative and interpretative solutions.
The National Labor Relations Commission must re-issue its disposition in accordance with the aim of the judgment made by the Supreme Court. In this case, it was appropriate for unfair labor practices to be acknowledged in theory following the proposal of a new legal principle, but a problem remained: how to determine the scope of remedial orders for unfair labor practices, in light of unusually severe economic disadvantages caused during eight long years which transpired until the case closed at the court level, and a period of over eight years which elapsed until the National Labor Relations Commission re-issued a disposal. It is not easy to decide whether remedial orders should stop at acknowledging unfair labor practices (and posting notices, etc.), or an order of reinstatement to original positions, or further, an order for compensation of wages over the period of disadvantaged treatment. When the establishment of unfair labor practices is recognized, there is no special legal regulation regarding what kind of remedy the labor commission should issue. Since the remedial order is left at the broad discretion of the labor commission, the commission can order appropriate and specific measures deemed necessary to correct unfair labor customs, guarantee the three fundamental labor rights, and stabilize labor-management relations. From this perspective, the practical remedial benefits of the mere acknowledgement of unfair labor practices may not be significant. Hence, a question may be raised as to whether the objective of policies for unfair labor practices, intended to protect the three fundamental labor rights, can be sufficiently achieved. Furthermore, in case an employee is reinstated, sanctions against the employer are weak in actuality, and protection for employees unde...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 管野和夫, "勞働法" 弘文堂 2016

2 권혁, "학습지교사의 근로자성 판단"

3 박상민, "학습지교사의 근로자성" 법원도서관 (115) : 2018

4 박지순, "학습지교사 판례를 통해 본 근로자성 판단 기준"

5 송강직, "일본의 특수고용형태 종사자에 대한 논의 방향" 법학연구소 17 (17): 169-196, 2014

6 최석환, "일본 노동조합법상 근로자성 판단의 새로운 기준― 노사관계법 연구회의 논의를 중심으로 ―" 한국노동법학회 (52) : 325-359, 2014

7 이상윤, "사용종속관계의 새로운 기준에 대한 비판적 소고" 한국비교노동법학회 45 : 59-92, 2019

8 조용만, "로스쿨 노동법 해설" 오래 2019

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

10 박지순, "독일의 유사근로자(특수형태고용종사자)의 유형과 노동법상의 지위에 관한 연구" 한국노동연구원 2005

11 오상호, "독일의 근로자개념과 근로자성 판단" 비교법학연구소 44 : 347-390, 2015

12 강성태, "노동판례백선" 한국노동법학회 2016

13 조상균, "노동판례백선" 한국노동법학회 2016

14 최홍엽, "노동조합법상의 근로자성에 대한 일본의 논의 - 2011년 최고재판소의 두 판결을 계기로 -" 법학연구원 19 (19): 461-493, 2012

15 강성태, "노동조합법상 근로자를 판단하는 판례의 기준" 한국노동법학회 (72) : 81-114, 2019

16 김영문, "노동조합법상 근로자 개념 확대와 그 후속문제에 대한 단상" 한국노동법학회 (72) : 139-188, 2019

17 노동법실무연구회, "노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 주해[I]" 박영사 2015

18 노동법실무연구회, "노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 주해[III]" 박영사 2015

19 김민기, "노동위원회 구제명령에 대한 사법심사법리에 관한 연구 : 부당노동행위 재심판정 최소소송을 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2004

20 西谷敏, "노동법의 기초구조" 박영사 2016

21 권혁, "노동법상 근로자 개념과 종속성 판단에 관한 소고 - 학습지교사의 근로자성 판단에 관한 대법원 판결(대법원 2018. 6. 15 선고 2014두12598, 12604(병합) 판결)을 중심으로 -" 한국고용노사관계학회 29 (29): 121-144, 2019

22 김형배, "노동법강의" 신조사 2019

23 임종률, "노동법 (제17판)" 박영사 2019

24 이상윤, "노동법" 법문사 2011

25 김형배, "노동법" 박영사 2016

26 노동법실무연구회, "근로기준법 주해[I]" 박영사 2014

27 유성재, "구직자와 특수형태근로종사자의 노조법상 근로자성" 법조협회 65 (65): 219-272, 2016