2020년 산업재해로 발생한 재해자의 특성요인 분석을 통한 산업재해저감방안 도출

김윤희,이재인 대한인간공학회 2022 大韓人間工學會誌 Vol.41 No.5

Objective: This study aims to provide foundation data to prevent industrial accidents by extracting insights from the analysis of the Characteristics of the victims of Industrial Accidents in 2020. Background: South Korea faced various industrial accident occurrences and the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) conducts an industrial accident survey every year to produce statistical data related to various industrial accidents. However, since the report is mainly composed of descriptive statistical analysis and provided, it is difficult to conduct an in-depth analysis to prevent industrial accidents. In order to prevent industrial accidents, not only a basic analysis of industrial accidents but also a detailed analysis of the victims of the industrial accidents is required. Therefore, this study intends to provide basic data for the prevention of industrial accidents in the future by analyzing the characteristics of the victims of industrial accidents based on the 2020 Industrial Accident Report. Method: To analyze the data from the Industrial Accident Cause Investigation Report in 2020 of KOSHA, the cross-tabulation analysis by the Pearson's Chi-square Test was used between each factor, such as the industry type and the business size, the workers' age, the accident pattern, the work period and the accident year. And the results of the statistical significance and the relationship on each factor are interpreted and finally, the meaning of the analysis was described. Results: The results suggested that there are significant differences between the victims of industrial accidents and industry type, the size of business, the workers' age, the accident pattern, the work period, and the accident year. This study also discovered that there are significant differences in the disaster types and number of industrial victims. Conclusion: In this study, the relationship and meaning between victims of the industrial accident and various influence factors that can affect the accidents of the industrial accidents were analyzed. Application: The results can be used as basic data for ergonomics guidelines from various factors to reduce industrial accidents.

중대재해처벌법의 제정과 향후 과제

김진영(Kim, Jin-Young) 한국법이론실무학회 2021 법률실무연구 Vol.9 No.4

우리나라는 산업재해를 예방하고자 산업안전보건법을 시행하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 산업현장에서의 사고나 사회적 재난으로 인한 사고로 기업이나 정부의 안전에 관한 구조적 문제가 꾸준히 지적되어 오면서 중대재해처벌등에 관한 법률이 제정되어 2022년 1월 시행을 앞두고 있다. 특히 중대산업재해의 경우에는 원하청 관계에서 오는 구조적 문제로 ‘위험의 외주화’라는 말까지 생길 정도로 사망사건이 발생해도 아무도 책임지지 않는 구조적인 문제도 지적되어 왔다. 새로 제정된 중대재해처벌법은 사업주 또는 경영책임자에게 안전 및 보건을 확보할 의무를 부담하게 하고, 이를 위반하여 사망자나 질병자 등이 발생하면 엄중한 처벌을 하고 있다. 이는 중대재해처벌법의 제정 목적에 따른 처벌주의에 주안점을 두고 궁극적으로는 사업주 등 기업의 안전보건조치의 강화 및 이행을 적극적으로 유도하고자 함이다. 그러나 중대재해처벌법은 아직도 많은 문제점이 있다. 안전 및 보건 확보의무의 내용 및 그 수범자에 관한 규정이 명확하지 않은 점, 처벌의 수위가 상당히 높아 산업재해의 예방이라는 입법목적에 부합하지 않은 점, 중대산업재해가 자주 발생하는 5명 미만의 사업장을 일률적으로 적용예외로 하고 있는 점 등이다. 따라서 중대재해처벌법의 문제점을 개선하기위해서는 아직 법 시행 이전이긴 하나 이를 고려한 보완입법이 필요하다고 본다. 중대재해처벌법의 입법목적이 기업의 처벌을 통한 중대재해의 사전방지에 있으나, 처벌만을 강화한 나머지 사전예방의 기능을 등한시 하고 있어 보인다. 안전 ・보건 관계 법령의 범위조차 명시하지 않은 것도 경영책임자등의 의무이행 가능성을 축소시키는 결과로 중대재해의 사전예방이라는 입법목적에 부합하지 않는 것으로 생각된다. 중대재해처벌법은 중대재해의 예방적 기능에 방점을 두고 안전 및 보건 확보의무의 내용과 이를 부담하는 주체에 관한 해석상의 논란이 없도록 명확하게 규정해야 할 것이다. The Republic of Korea implements the Occupational Safety and Health Act to prevent industrial accidents. Nevertheless, as structural issues related to the safety of companies and governments have been steadily pointed out due to accidents at industrial or social disasters, the Act on the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act has been enacted and is set to take effect in January 2022. In particular, in the case of serious industrial accidents, structural problems have also been pointed out that no one is responsible for the death case to the extent that it is a structural problem arising from the relationship of subcontractors. The newly enacted the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act requires business owners or management managers to bear the obligation to secure safety and health, and severely punishes deaths or sick people in violation of this. This focuses on punishmentism according to the purpose of enacting the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act, and ultimately seeks to actively induce the reinforcement and implementation of safety and health measures for owners. However, the Severe Disaster Punishment Act still has many problems. The contents of the obligation to secure safety and health, the regulations on the recipients are not clear, the level of punishment is quite high, which does not meet the legislative purpose of preventing industrial accidents, and the uniform application of workplaces with less than five serious industrial accidents. Therefore, in order to improve the problems of the the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act, supplementary legislation considering this is necessary, although it is still before the enforcement of the Act. The legislative purpose of the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act is to prevent serious disasters through corporate punishment, but it seems that the function of preventing them is neglected because only the punishment has been strengthened. The fact that even the scope of safety and health laws and regulations is not specified is considered to be inconsistent with the legislative purpose of preventing serious accidents as a result of reducing the possibility of performance of obligations by managers. the Fatal Industrial Accidents Punishment Act should clearly stipulate that there is no controversy over the interpretation of the content of the obligation to secure safety and health and the subject responsible for it, focusing on the preventive function of serious accidents.

산업안전보건법 상 산업재해 예방 기능강화를 위한 실효적 제재 방안 - 과징금 제도를 중심으로 -

권혁(Kwon, Hyuk) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학연구 Vol.62 No.1

오늘날 산업재해 발생의 근본적 원인은 과도한 비용절감노력에 있다. 산업재해의 발생 위험과 비용절감 노력의 고도화는 상호 비례관계에 놓여 있다. 그렇다면 산업재해예방을 위한 제반 조치의무의 이행이 단순한 기업 비용을 치부되지 않도록 해야 한다. 나아가 산업재해 예방 조치를 비용절감차원에서 해태하였다면, 산안법 상 매우 엄중한 금전적 불이익을 과함으로써 제반 수익의 회수 차원을 넘어서서 실질적인 제재가 이루어지도록 해야 한다. 산업안전보건법 상 제반 의무 위반행위에 대하여는 원칙적으로 형사제재인 형벌이 부과된다. 이는 산업안전보건법 상 제반 의무의 이행이 갖는 사회적 의미가 매우 크다는 것을 방증하는 것이지만, 유감스럽게도 정작 산안법 상 중요한 의무를 이행하도록 강제하는 데 있어 그 실효성은 떨어지는 것으로 보인다. 실제로도 산안법 상 의무 위반을 이유로 한 형벌의 부과 사례가 드물고, 가사 형벌이 부과되더라도 그 형의 정도가 상대적으로 낮다. 이는 형사벌의 속성상 명확한 <고의의 입증>이 이루어져야 하는 데 이에 대한 어려움 때문으로 보인다. 나아가 산업재해에 대한 고유한 노동인지성 없이 단지 일반 상해 등과 동일한 선상에서 평가하려는 양형판단의 문제점도 원인이다. 형벌 일변도의 제재방식에서 벗어날 필요가 있다. 나아가 제재의 차원에 그치지 않고, 법상 의무를 준수하도록 강제하는 입법정책적 효과도 제고하도록 해야 한다. 이에 따라 실질적인 제재로서의 효과와 실효적인 산업재해 예방수단으로서의 기능을 다할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 과징금 부과의 필요성에 대해 고려해볼 필요가 있다. 특히 과징금제도는 원래 불법적인 행위로 인하여 얻은 경영수익을 회수하기 위한 제도적 수단으로 도입된 제도인 만큼 그 부과 금액의 폭이 넓다. 비록 형사적 제재는 아니지만, 경제적 차원에서 매우 강력한 기업제재수단으로서 평가될 수 있다. 오늘날 산업재해 위험의 방치가 비용절감 때문에 발생한다면 산안법 상 제재에 있어 과징금제도의 원칙적 활용을 중장기적으로 고려할 필요가 있다. The laws to prevent industrial accidents in Korea are mainly based on imposing penalties. There is a limit to the imposition of punishment. This is because the actor needs a clear intention. It is difficult to say that the employer wanted the occurrence of an industrial accident. However, industrial accidents must be actively prevented. This is because industrial accidents are accidents for workers who are socially disadvantaged. Employers are obligated to protect workers. When an employer makes a worker work, the work should not be dangerous. If the work is dangerous, the employer is obliged to take measures to prevent industrial accidents from occurring. Unfortunately, penalties don"t seem to be useful in compelling employers to fulfill important legal obligations. In fact, it is very rare to impose a penalty for violating obligations. Even when penalties are imposed, the penalties are relatively light and therefore do not fit the judgment of the law. It is necessary to understand the social implications of industrial accidents. Industrial accidents are not just accidents. Industrial accidents are social damages. Industrial accidents are a system of protection for those who can earn a living by working at risk. If you understand the nature of these industrial accidents, your obligations for industrial accidents must be fulfilled. It is important to ensure that employers comply with labor laws. In particular, when users try to reduce costs, industrial accidents increase. The reason why industrial accidents often occur in contract contracts today is cost reduction. If so, efforts to prevent industrial accidents should be made so that cost reduction causes losses. Through this, it is imperative to prevent excessive contraction. The penalty system is an economic punishment. The penalty penalty system could play a very important function as a sanction for preventing industrial accidents. In conclusion, if neglect of the risk of industrial accidents occurs today due to cost reduction, it is necessary to consider in the mid- to long-term the principle use of the penalty system for sanctions under the Sanction Act.

중대재해처벌법의 쟁점에 관한 소고(小考) - 중대산업재해의 문제점을 중심으로 -

한석훈 법조협회 2022 法曹 Vol.71 No.4

In order to prevent industrial accidents, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT has established standards for industrial safety and health, which also imposes business owners a duty to take concrete and direct safety and health measures and punishes them if they violate such duty. SERIOUS ACCIDENTS PUNISHMENT ACT, which took effect this year, additionally imposes CEO(Chief Executive Officer) a duty to take management measures to prevent industrial accidents. However, although the range of such duty is abstract and indirect, CEO is criminally punished if the violation of such duty results in death, injury, or diseases. This causes various legal difficulty problems such as a causal relationship issue or violation of the principle of clarity and proportionality. This article deals with problems arising from industrial accidents and suggests solutions. In legislative point of view, the criminal sanctions for violations of CEO's duty to take management measures should be changed to administrative sanctions, and the range of the management measures should be clearly defined- it should be limited to the measures only necessary for safety and health. In addition, even if it is necessary to impose criminal responsibility, it should be the corporation itself that is punished. This is because modern corporate activities and industrial accidents are caused by the actions of various corporate members and it also alignes with a priniciple of responsibility and is effective for the prevention of industrial accidents. In particular, the statutory sentence of Article 6 of the SERIOUS ACCIDENTS PUNISHMENT ACT, which punishes if a death of a worker is due to an industrial accident, is significantly heavier than the violation of Article 167 (1) of the OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT or other occupational negligence. Such heavy punishment violates the principle of the balance of crime and punishment, and only increases the sense of rejection and immunity to punishment, and has little effect on the prevention or reduction of industrial accidents. Therefore, in order to effectively prevent industrial accidents, it is necessary to strengthen preventive measures led by the government rather than relying on preventive measures led by companies. 원래 산업재해의 예방을 위해서는 산업안전보건법이 산업의 안전·보건에 관한 기준을 수립하고 사업주에게 구체적, 직접적인 안전·보건조치의무를 부과하며 이를 위반한 직접 행위자와 사업주를 형사처벌하고 있다. 금년부터 시행된 중대재해처벌법은 추가로 사업의 경영책임자에게 산업재해 방지를 위한 경영상 관리조치의무를 새롭게 부과하고 있다. 그런데 이러한 관리조치의무는 추상적, 간접적 의무임에도 불구하고 그 위반으로 사업 종사자에게 사망·부상·질병의 결과가 발생하면 경영책임자를 형사처벌하고 있기 때문에, 의무위반과 결과발생의 인과관계 인정 문제, 죄형법정주의의 명확성원칙 및 비례원칙 위반 등 여러 가지 법해석상의 난제와 법리문제를 야기하고 있다. 이 논문은 그 중 산업재해를 중심으로 발생하는 문제점과 해결방안을 모색하고 있다. 그 중 입법론으로는 경영책임자의 관리조치의무 위반에 대한 제재를 형벌 대신 행정제재로 변경하고, 그 관리조치의 내용도 안전·보건을 위해 필요한 범위 내에서 명확하게 규정할 것을 제안하고 있다. 또한 가사 형사책임을 묻는 것이 불가피하다 하더라도, 현대 기업활동과 재해발생의 분업적 특성에 비추어 볼 때 경영책임자를 처벌하는 것보다는 법인의 형사책임을 인정하고 회사 자체를 처벌하는 것이 책임주의에 부합하고 재해예방을 위해서도 효과적임을 지적하고 있다. 특히 산업재해로 종사자의 사망 등 결과가 발생한 경우의 형사처벌 규정인 중대재해처벌법 제6조의 법정형은 유사한 산업재해 처벌규정인 산업안전보건법 제167조 제1항 위반죄나 다른 업무상과실범죄와 비교할 때 현저히 과중한 법정형을 정한 것으로 형벌체계의 균형을 잃고 있다. 이러한 과중한 형사처벌은 죄형균형원칙에 위배됨은 물론, 형벌에 대한 거부감과 면역력만 높일 뿐, 산업재해의 예방이나 감소에는 별 효과가 없다. 따라서 산업재해의 효과적 예방을 위해서는 기업의 예방활동과 사후처벌에만 의존할 일이 아니라, 정부가 주도하는 재해예방 조치를 강화할 필요가 있다.

산재법상 출퇴근재해 인정의 문제점 - 자동차보험과의 관계를 중심으로 -

권영국 전북대학교 부설법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.58 No.-

2016년 헌법재판소의 ‘산재보험법’ 37조 1항에 대한 위헌판결로 인하여 국회에는 출퇴근재해에 대한 산업재해 인정에 관한 법안이 통과되어 2018년부터 시행하고 있다. 업무상 재해는업무와 상당인과관계가 있어야 하고 출퇴근은 업무의 시작과 종료지점에 해당하므로, 출퇴근이 없이는 업무를 시작할 수 없다. 따라서 출퇴근은 업무와 불가분적인 인과관계를 지니고 있다. 독일, 일본 등 여러 나라에서 출퇴근재해를 산업재해에 포함시켜 보호하고 있고 우리나라또한 이를 받아들여 출퇴근재해를 보호하고 있다. 출퇴근 재해를 보호하는 방법에 있어 출퇴근재해를 기존의 산업재해와 같이 보호하는 일원론과 출퇴근 재해와 기존의 산업재해를 나누어서 보호하는 이원론 등의 논쟁이 있었으나 우리나라는 독일과 같은 일원론의 입장으로서 출퇴근재해를 보호하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라의 현실에 출퇴근재해를 산업재해에 포함시켜 보호하는 것이 과연 타당한 것인가에 대한 의문이 존재한다. 기존의 출퇴근 재해는 사용자가 제공하는 교통수단이나 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하여 출퇴근하는 도중에 발생하는 사고에 대해서만 보호를 하였으나 개정된 ‘산재보험법’에서는 통상적인 경로와 방법으로 출퇴근하는 중발생한 사고도 출퇴근재해의 범위에 포함시키고 있어 그 보호의 범위가 기존보다 매우 넓게 인정된다. 따라서 우리나라의 산재보험은 근로자의 과실여부와 상관없이 재해근로자 무과실책임의원칙을 인정하는 재해보상제도이므로 사업주의 산재보험료의 증가로 인한 보험료 납부액 증가 문제가 예상되며, 출퇴근중의 사고는 사업장 밖에서 발생하는 재해이므로 사용자에게 이에대한 책임을 모두 부담하는 것이 타당한 것인지에 관한 문제, 출퇴근 재해의 경우에는 근로자의 고의·자해행위 등에 대하여 이를 입증하기가 어렵고, 조사기구 등에 대한 입법이 마련되지않아 부정수급문제 등 근로자의 도덕적 해이문제 등이 발생할 수 있다. 또한 가장 중요한 문제로서 대부분의 근로자들이 자동차로 출퇴근을 하기 때문에 자동차로 인한 사고가 발생할 가능성이 높음에도 불구하고 자동차보험과 산재보험 간의 보상범위의 차이에서 오는 문제점, 공단의 구상권 행사 시 보험사와의 분쟁의 발생문제, 입법을 통해 해결할 시 보험사의 영업권 침해문제 등 다양한 문제가 발생할 가능성이 있으므로, 현재 마련된 구상금협의조정기구를 통하여이를 해결할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 구상금협의와 관련된 문제는 독일, 일본 등의 해외의 출퇴근재해를 보장하는 나라에서 이미 충분한 논의를 거친 문제이므로 구상금협의조정기구를 운영할 때 그 나라들의 입법례를 비교법적인 분석을 통하여 우리나라의 교통 실정과 기존의 ‘산재보험법’의 원칙과 충돌하지 않는 출퇴근재해 보호시스템을 갖추어야 할 것이다. 독일은 분담협정을 통하여 보험사와 사회보험업자 간의 손해사고를 합리적으로 규율하고 있으므로 구상금협의조정기구 구성에 있어 이를 참고할 필요가 있을 것이다. 일본의 경우는 출퇴근재해에대해 근로자에게 일정부분 부담금을 부과하고 있다. 사용자가 재해예방이 불가능한 출퇴근 재해로 인하여 보험료율이 상승하고 보험료 납부액이 증가하는 것은 불합리하므로 근로자가 출퇴근재해에 한하여 일정부분 보험료를 납부와 중대한 과실에 대해서는 감액처리 하는 것이 형평의 ... Owing to Constitutional Court’s unconstitutionality decision on ‘Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act(IACIA)’ Article 37 Clause 1 in 2016 the National Assembly passed the act on the recognition of commuting accidents as industrial accidents, which has been enforced since 2018. Occupational accidents should have proximate causal relations to occupations and occupations can not begin without commuting because commuting corresponds to the start and end points of occupations. Therefore, commuting has inseparable causal relations to occupations. Several countries including Germany and Japan incorporates commuting accidents into industrial accidents to protect them, which our country also adopts to protect commuting accidents. There was a debate between monism and dualism on the methods to protect commuting accidents. That is, monism protects commuting accidents like existing industrial accidents, whereas dualism distinguishes commuting accidents from existing industrial accidents to protect commuting accidents, although our country protects commuting accidents from the standpoint of monism like Germany. However, there is a question about whether it is valid to include commuting accidents in industrial accidents in the reality of our country. Though existing commuting accidents included accidents occurring in the process of commuting using transportation means provided by employers or equivalent, revised IACIA includes even accidents occurring inthe process of commuting using ordinary paths and methods in the scope of commuting accidents, so that it recognizes the scope of protection more largely compared with the existing scope of protection. Thus, because our country’s industrial accident compensation insurance recognizes the principle of employers’ liability without fault irrespective of employees’ fault, the following problems can occur. Insurance premium payments are expected to increase due to raising employers’ industrial accident compensation insurance premiums. Since accidents in the process of commuting occur outside the places of business, there is a problem about whether it is valid to place all the responsibilities for such accidents on employers. In the case of commuting accidents, as it is difficult to verify workers’ intentional or self-injurious behaviors and it is lacking to prepare legislation on investigation organizations, workers’ moral hazards can occur including illicit benefit. In addition, the most important issues are as follows. Even though accidents by automobiles are likely to occur because most employees commute by automobiles, there are differences in the scope of compensation between automobile insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance. If public corporations exercise the right to indemnity (subrogating rights), there can occur conflicts between public corporations and insurance companies. In the case of solutions through legislation, in that diverse problems including infringing business rights in insurance companies are likely to occur, it is necessary to solve these problems through the consultation adjustment organization for indemnity amount which is formed in the present. Therefore, because these problems related to indemnity amount consultation have been already discussed sufficiently in foreign countries including Germany and Japan which ensure commuting accidents, through the comparative law analysis of those foreign countries’ legislative cases, it is necessary to establish the system to protect commuting accidents appropriate to the actual state of traffic accidents and the principle of existing industrial accident compensation insurance act in our country. Now that Germany reasonably regulates damage accidents between insurance companies and social insurers through sharing agreements, it is necessary to refer to forming consultation adjustment organizations for indemnity amount. Japan imposes a certain amount of allotment or share on empl...

전시 산업재해 실태와 재해보호 규정의 식민지성

이병례 ( Lee¸ Byung-rye ) 수선사학회 2021 史林 Vol.- No.75

This article dealt with the historical nature of industrial accidents during the colonial period. In particular, it reviewed the actual conditions of industrial accidents and the countermeasures of colonial power during the Asian-Pacific War. Wartime industrial accidents were certainly not regarded as personal problems. The colonial power emphasized that in order to give preference to “industrial warriors,” it is necessary to treat and protect industrial accidents by enacting industrial accident protection regulations. However, even in such discourse, workers who are devoted to the “state” are not protected by the general workers. Protection against industrial accidents was not the object of general rights or social protection of workers, but a privilege enjoyed by certain classes. Hence, the “national responsibility” for industrial accidents was to cease to speak of war propaganda. Due to the necessity of mobilizing war, the “body” of Korean workers emerged as an opportunity to expand the social nature of industrial accidents. However, not only did not the protection regulations covering all workers have been established, but also discrimination and exclusion based on colonialism were the basis, so it can be seen that the sociality of industrial accidents was rather regressed.

산업안전보건법위반에 관한 사업주 형사책임의 적정한 규율

전형배 ( Hyoung Bae Jun ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구소 2009 과학기술법연구 Vol.14 No.1

The prevention of industrial accidents becomes very important issue in the western hemisphere, but there are few active discussions on the matter in Korea yet, which results in few outcomes of studies. Although government builds up a lot of policies to prevent industrial accidents, the incidences of death do not decrease remarkably lately. The incidences of death increase by and large because of booming conditions of building industries, on the contrary. It requires government`s strong decisions and supports to prevent industrial accidents in double respects as shown in the fine example of the United Kingdom. One respect, which is called ``a prior prevention policy``, is that government gives enough aids to set up the self-regulatory system and supervises corporate to do the concerned activities correctly. The other respect, which is called ``a posterior prevention policy``, is to impose the stick criminal liability on corporate. The joint penal provision in the industrial safety and health act seems to lack effectiveness if it is viewed in the latter respect. This paper proposes 3 revision plans on the industrial safety and health act to reinforce the effectiveness of joint penal provision. Firstly, the industrial safety and health act article 66-1 covers employer`s liability only in case of incidences of death but not in case of fatal injury accidents, even though fatal injury accidents have serious negative effect as much as death cases. There should be revision on article 66-1 to impose criminal liability on employers when fatal injury accidents happen. Secondly, the industrial safety and health act has the joint penal provision to regulate the corporate criminal liability, but the amount of fine which is applied to corporate is not enough to arouse corporate`s attention to the calamity of industrial accidents. It requires to raise the amount of fine, considering the instance of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which provides unlimited fine. Thirdly, There is no provision to impose the criminal liability on the offenders, when the offenders do not comply with the Labor Minister`s orders(article26 (4)) to remedy serious breach that is the cause of the industrial accidents. The offenders should be brought under the punishment as an instance of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Lastly, I oppose an general introduction of offence by negligence to the industrial safety and health act because of the nature of offence by negligence and the technical traits that the act has. It appears that new government has the plans to reduce the punishment level provided in the industrial safety and health act with the view of regulation reform. This attitude is not considering the realities of law enforcement, in which the offenders are not punished strictly and is against such global trend reinforcing the corporate criminal liability as shown in the example of the United Kingdom. I expect government not to get rid of protective measures in the industrial safety and health act without careful consideration. A great cause of reform does not always prevail.

노조전임자의 노동조합활동 중의 재해에 대한 업무상 재해 인정 여부

조용식(Yong Sik Cho) 한국고용노사관계학회 2008 産業關係硏究 Vol.18 No.1

대법원이 1994년 2월 22일 최초로 노조전임자의 노동조합활동 중 입은 재해를 업무상 재해로 인정하였고 이후 이 입장을 변동없이 유지하고 있다. 이 판결 이후 노조전임자의 노동조합활동의 업무 해당성 및 업무상 재해 여부에 대한 논의가 진행되어 왔다. 노조전임자가 노동조합활동 중 재해를 입은 경우 문제되는 것은 이 조합활동을 산업재해보상보험법상의 업무로 볼 것인가 하는 점과, 업무상의 재해로 인정할 수 있을 것인가 하는 점이다. 이를 해결하기 위한 선결문제는 산업재해보상보험법상의 ‘7업무’8가 무엇이냐 하는 점이다. 산업재해보상보험법은 업무의 개념 규정을 두지 않고 있다. 이에 이 법 시행규칙 제3장 제3절에 규정되어 있는 내용을 분석하여 도출하는 것에 동의한다. 따라서 산업재해보상보험법상의 업무는 사용자의 지배ㆍ관리하에 있는 상태의 업무, 즉 사용자와 체결된 근로계약상의 의무와 사용자의 지시를 이행하기 위하여 시간적ㆍ장소적으로 제한을 받는 상태에서의 행위를 업무로 보는 것이 구체적이고 명확하게 업무의 범위를 설정하는 것이라고 본다. 이렇게 업무의 개념을 정할 때 노조전임자의 조합활동은 사용자와의 근로계약상의 업무의 내용이 아니며, 또한 사용자가 지시한 일을 수행하기 위하여 시간적ㆍ장소적 제한을 받지 않고 사용자의 지배ㆍ관리 상태를 벗어나 자유롭게 조합활동을 하는 것이므로 산업재해보상보험법상의 업무로 볼 수 없는 것이다. 또한 노조전임자가 조합활동 중 입은 재해는 산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제1호가 정하는 업무상의 사유로 인한 재해에도 해당할 수 없는 것이다. 따라서 대법원의 판결은 변경되어야 한다. 입법론적으로는 노조전임자를 재해 발생의 위험에 완전히 노출되도록 방치하는 것 또한 바람직하다 할 수 없으므로, 산업재해보상보험법상의 별도의 규정을 두어 노동조합이 보험료를 부담하여 노조전임자에게 걸맞는 보상을 행함으로써 일정 정도 재해의 위험으로부터 보호받을 수 있도록 하는 방법을 생각할 수 있을 것이다. For the first time on February 22, 1995, the Supreme Court admitted accidents during full-time union officers’ labor union activities as occupational accidents, and since then, it has been maintaining the position. Since the decision, there have been discussions on whether full-time union officers’ labor union activities are works and whether accidents during the activities are occupational accidents. Article 24-1 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates that full-time union officers are acknowledged if their positions are provided in the collective bargaining agreement or the employer agrees on them, and this ensures that the acknowledgement of full-time union officers is not forced on the employer but is by agreement between the employer and the labor union. Accordingly, it looks meaningless to dispute over the legal ground for full-time union officers. Accidents during full-time union officers’ labor union activities raise the questions of whether the union activities are works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and whether the accidents can be regarded as occupational accidents. A prerequisite for answering these questions is what ‘work’ is under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not define the concept of work. Thus, the concept is derived from analyzing the contents of Article 3-3 of the enforcement regulations of the law. According to the concept, the specific and clear scope of work under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be defined by regarding works as jobs done by employees in the state under the employer’s control and management, namely, employees’ actions under the constraints of time and place in order to carry out their duties under the employment contract between the employees and the employer and the employer’s instructions. Given this concept of work, full-time union officers’ union activities are not works under the employment contract with the employer or under the constraints of time and place for carrying out the employer’s instructions. Full-time union officers do union activities freely out of the employer’s control and management. Therefore, such activities cannot be regarded as works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. What is more, accidents happening during full-time union officers’ union activities cannot be occupational accidents as provided by Article 5-1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Therefore, it is unjust that, nevertheless, the Supreme Court admitted full-time union officers’ union activities as works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and accidents during union activities as occupational accidents for the reason that full-time union officers’ works are closely related to the employer’s works. In particular, it is an unacceptable decision that the Supreme Court denied the occupational nature of activities related to labor organizations, which are in the relation of mutual aid or association, and judged that accidents during such activities are not occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision should be reversed. In the context of legislation, it is not desirable either to leave full-time union officers to be exposed utterly to the risk of accidents. Thus, we may consider a method of protecting them from the risk of accidents to some degree by adding a separate provision to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, under which the labor union pays the insurance premium for the compensation of full-time union officers.

운수창고 및 통신업에서의 재해율 예측과 무재해시간 추정에 관한 연구

강영식,김태구 한국안전학회 2010 한국안전학회지 Vol.25 No.6

Many industrial accidents have occurred over the years in the manufacturing and construction industries in Korea. However, as the service industry has increased continuously, the share of the accident rate in the service industry was 39.07% in 2009, while the manufacturing industry share was 33.73%. The service industry share overtook the manufacturing industry share for the first time. Therefore, this research considers prevention of industrial accidents in the service industry as well as manufacturing and construction industries. This paper describes a procedure and a method to estimate efficient accident rate forecasting and estimated zero accident time in the service industry in order to prevent industrial accidents in the transportation, storage, and telecommunication divisions. This paper proposes a model using an analytical function for the sake of very efficient accident rate forecasting. Accordingly, this paper has develops a program for accident rate forecasting, zero accident time estimating, and calculation of achievement probability through MFC (Microsoft Foundation Class) software Visual Studio 2008 in the transportation, storage, and telecommunication divisions. In results of this paper, ARIMA (Auto Regressive Integrating Moving Average) is regarded as a very efficient forecasting model for the transportation, storage, and telecommunication division. In testing this model, value minimizing the Sum of Square Errors (SSE) was calculated as 0.2532. Finally the results of this paper are sure to help establish easy accident rate forecasting and strategy or method of zero accident time in the service industry for prevention of industrial accidents.

The Characteristics of Industrial Accidents in Shipbuilding Industry

Kyung Tae Lee 대한인간공학회 2012 大韓人間工學會誌 Vol.31 No.1

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of industrial accidents in shipbuilding industry. Background: As the accident frequency in shipbuilding industry is higher than those of other industries, it is important to grasp the accident characteristics of shipbuilding industry to reduce the accidents. Method: This paper aggregated some important accident report of the shipbuilding industry including industrial accident analysis of Korean government and drew some important accident characteristics of shipbuilding industry. Results: Accidents in Shipbuilding industry was reviewed in respect of accidents rate, accidents distribution by age, accidents by employed period, accidents severity, accidents type, accidents type by process, accidents caused by object, and hazards in process. Conclusion: Accident related indexes in shipbuilding were much higher than those of whole industry. Application: These results can be used to provide base information for more effective accident preventions in shipbuilding industry.