특수형태근로종사자 특례 제도의 개선 방안

조성민,조성혜 동국대학교 비교법문화연구소 2020 比較法硏究 Vol.20 No.2

As global trade competition accelerates around the world and the fourth industrial revolution begins with the development of ICT, companies are changing their workforce structure and diversifying forms of work and employment to generate the best profits at the minimum cost. Special employment is also one of the changing forms of work. Special employment workers who are not personally, but economically subordinate to the employer, are not recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act even though they provide work similarly to employees. They could not be protected by the employment law or by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act(IACA) if they are not recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act. In order to solve this problem of special employment, provision of “special-type worker” has been introduced in Article 125 of IACA since July 1, 2008. The term “special-type worker” under Article 125 of IACA means a person engaged in a job without using others (non-substitution of work) mainly when he/she provides work necessary for the operation of one business on a regular basis (subordination to a specific employer) and belongs to the 13 jobs prescribed by Article 125 of the Enforcement Decree of IACA. However the majority of special employment workers are still not protected from industrial accidents. The problem is that with the recent increase of platform workers who provide work through digital platforms, it has become difficult to meet the requirements for subordination to certain employers in the special provision of IACA. Because platform workers have no choice but to work for multiple employers on the platform, they cannot meet the requirements for subordination to a certain employer. In addition, the restriction on application to 13 jobs also exposes inherent limitations in that it cannot cover all the special employment workers. Besides, only a small number of special employment workers are actually protected by IACA because they apply for exclusion of this act in accordance with the regulations. Under this background, this paper describes the current status of special employment workers in the blind spot of industrial accidents, and then reviews the main contents and problems of special system of special type workers under the IACA and the Industrial Safety and Health Act. Based on this, we would like to present legal protection measures for special employment workers. 전 세계적으로 글로벌 무역 경쟁이 가속화되고 ICT의 발달로 제4차 산업혁명이 시작되면서 기업은 최소의 비용으로 최고의 이윤을 창출하기 위하여 인력구조를 바꾸고 근로 및 고용의 형태를 다각화하고 있다. 특수고용직도 이러한 흐름에 따라 등장한 새로운 노동형태 중 하나이다. 특수고용직종사자들은 근로·고용계약이 아닌 도급이나 위임의 형태로 계약을 체결하여 인적으로 종속되어 있지 않지만, 경제적으로 종속되어 있어 근로자와 유사하게 근로를 제공함에도 불구하고 근로기준법상 근로자로 인정받지 못하여 노동법의 보호를 받지 못한다. 근로자로 인정받지 못하면 노동법의 보호를 받지 못할 뿐만 아니라 근로자를 보호 대상으로 하는 사회보험의 적용도 받지 못한다. 그 중 산업재해의 위험은 특수고용직이 직면한 가장 심각한 문제라고 할 수 있다. 이렇게 사회적 보호가 필요한 특수고용직을 산업재해로부터 보호하기 위하여 2008년 7월 1일부터 산업재해보상보험법 제125조에 특수형태근로종사자에 대한 특례 규정이 신설되어 시행되고 있으나, 여전히 절대 다수의 특수고용직은 산업재해로부터 보호를 받지 못하고 있다. 산재보험법 제125조에 의한 특수형태근로종사자란 ⅰ) 주로 하나의 사업에 그 운영에 필요한 노무를 상시적으로 제공하고 보수를 받아 생활하고(특정 사업주에의 전속성), ⅱ) 노무를 제공할 때 타인을 사용하지 않으면서(업무의 비대체성), ⅲ) 대통령령으로 정하는 직종에 종사하는 자를 말한다. 대통령령(제125조)으로 정하는 직종은 현재 총 13개 직종에 불과하다. 문제는 최근 디지털플랫폼을 통해 노무를 제공하는 플랫폼노동종사자가 증가함에 따라 산재보험법상 특수형태근로종사자에 대한 특례 규정에서 특정 사업주에의 전속성 요건을 갖추기가 어렵게 되었다는 것이다. 플랫폼노동종사자의 경우 플랫폼의 복수 사업주를 위하여 업무를 수행하는 경우가 대부분이기 때문에 대통령령에서 정하는 특수형태근로종사자에 해당하는 13개 업종 종사자라고 할지라도 사업주에의 전속성 요건을 충족하지 못해 산재보험의 적용을 받지 못하게 된다. 또한 13개 직종으로의 적용 제한도 갈수록 늘어나는 특수고용직종사자를 포섭할 수 없다는 점에서 내재적 한계를 노출하고 있다. 게다가 산재보험의 적용을 받는 특수형태근로종사자라 할지라도 적용 제외 신청을 할 수 있기 때문에 실질적으로 특례를 적용받는 사람은 소수에 불과하다. 이러한 배경 하에 본 논문은 산업재해의 사각지대에 놓인 특수고용직종사자의 현황과 실태를 기술한 후, 산재보험법과 산업안전보건법상 특수형태근로종사자 특례제도의 주요내용 및 문제점을 검토한다. 이를 바탕으로 특수고용직종사자에 대한 법적 보호 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

특수형태근로종사자의 보호

박은정(Eun Jeong Park) 한국고용노사관계학회 2018 産業關係硏究 Vol.28 No.3

특수형태근로종사자에 대한 노동법적 보호 논의가 시작된 지 17여 년의 시간이 흘렀음에도 불구하고 산재보험법 적용 이외 별다른 성과물이 없다는 것은 이 논의의 어려움을 그대로 보여주는 듯하다. 그러나 이 시간 동안 사실상 적지 않은 변화가 있었다고 생각한다. 법원은 근로기준법상의 근로자 개념을 해석하는 데 다소 완화된 기준을 적용하려는 노력을 하는 듯 보이고, 특수형태근로종사자 중 일부 직종이기는 하지만 노조법상 노동조합을 설립할 수 있게 되었고, 디지털 플랫폼 노동의 확산과 함께 이전보다 훨씬 더 적극적으로 특수형태근로종사자에 대한 노동법적 보호 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 이 글은 위와 같은 바탕 아래에서 특수형태근로종사자라는 용어가 갖고 있는 문제점과 한계를 인식하고, 이 용어가 제공하는 사고의 틀로부터 벗어나 새로운 인식의 전환이 필요하다는 점을 말하고자 하였다. 특히 특수형태근로 종사자와 같은 특수한 고용형태가 확산되고 있는 현재, 노동법은 어디까지 적용되어야 하는지에 대한 문제의식을 갖고 특수형태근로종사자들에 대한 노동법적 보호를 위한 방안을 제안하여 보기로 하였다. 이 글의 가장 중요한 전제는 노동법의 기본적 적용 대상인 근로자인 자를 특수형태근로종사자로 오분류해서는 안 된다는 것이다. 그리고 특수형태근로종사자에 대한 완전한 노동3권이 보장되어야 한다는 것, 사회보험법제의 포괄적 적용이 요구된다는 것을 말하였다. 17 years ago, official discussions on the need of the protection for persons in special types of employment based on labor law was started. But there has been no achievement except article 125 (special case concerning persons in special types of employment) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act for the legal protection for them. But some changes are detected. Courts seem to make efforts to apply the eased standards in interpreting the concept of an employee defined in the Labor Standard Act. Some of persons in special types of employment can associate unions based on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The need of legal protection for persons in special types of employment actively increases with the spread of digital platform employment. This paper perceived the problems and limits of the concept of persons in special types of employment and tries to show the need to change the way of thinking about that concept. Specially, as the spread of special types of employment, this paper tries to suggest how the labor law provides the legal protection for persons in special types of employment and to show what the contents of the labor law in providing the legal protection for them is. The most important premise of this paper is not to misclassify an employee into an non-employee. On the base of this premise, this paper tries to show that persons in special types of employment should be wholly guaranteed the labor"s three primary rights and should be comprehensively applied the social insurance acts.

사법과 입법의 사각지대, 특수형태근로종사자

도재형(都在亨) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2013 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.34

비공식 고용을 ‘규제 부재형’과 ‘규제 미준수형’으로 구분할 때, 특수형태근로 종사자는 규제 부재형 범주의 대표적 유형이다. 특수형태근로종사자는 근로자로서의 성격과 자영인으로서의 성격을 공유한 애매한 모습의 노무공급자이다. 이러한 노무 공급 방식의 애매함은 입법의 불비와 사법적 기준의 모호함과 겹쳐특수형태근로종사자의 법적 보호 방안을 마련하는 데 어려움을 초래한다. 이 글에서는 위와 같은 문제의식에 터 잡아 특수형태근로종사자에 관한 기존의 입법안과 판례를 검토한다. 그리고 그 결과에 기초하여 특수형태근로종사자를 공식 고용으로 전환하기 위한 법률적 과제로서 아래와 같이 해석론적 기준 및 보호 입법에 관한 원칙을 제시한다. 첫째, 특수형태근로종사자의 공식 고용으로의 전환의 전제 조건으로 필요한 것은, 법원이 근로자성 판단에 관한 적절한 기준을 세움으로써 노무 제공의 실태에 맞게 사용자에 대해 노동법과 사회보장법적 책임을 부과하는 것이다. 이를 위해서는 근로자 개념을 해석하고 적용하는 과정에서 ① 노무 제공 관계의 형식보다는 사실에 터 잡아 근로자성이 판단되어야 하고, ② 종속성 판단 요소들에 대한 평가는 탄력적으로 이루어져야 한다. 둘째, 특수형태근로종사자의 보호는 새로운 입법을 통해 제3의 영역을 신설하는 방식으로 이루어져야 한다. 그 보호 입법에 포함될 주요한 내용 및 원칙은 다음과 같다. ① 특수형태근로종사자의 범위는 개방적이어야 한다. ② 그 근로조건은 새로운 법률에 구체적으로 규정되어야 한다. ③ 그들의 노동3권은 헌법상 기본권으로서 보장되어야 한다. ④ 특수형태근로종사자는 사회보험법 영역에서 원칙적으로 근로자와 동일하게 취급되어야 한다. When informal employment classified in non-regulation and non-compliance, a person in special types of employment is a representative type of non-regulation. Persons in special types of employment share in the nature of employees and independent contractors. These characteristics providing labor service, overlaps with the deficiency of the legislation and the ambiguity of judicial standard, which causes difficulties when preparing legal protection measures for persons in special types of employment. Based on the awareness of these issues, this article reviews existing legislation bills and case laws of persons in special types of employment. And based on these results, as the legal challenge to make persons in special types of employment into formal employment, the interpretive standards and principles on the protective legislation are proposed as follows. Firstly, what is required as a prerequisite for making persons in special types of employment into formal employment is, by establishing appropriate standard for the court to determine whether an individual is an employee or not, to impose responsibility on the employer, which is suitable for the real condition of labor service. For this, in the process of the interpretation and the application of the concept of the employee, ① Whether an individual is an employee or not should be determined by fact than the form of relationship of providing labor service ② Secondly, the persons in special types of employment should be protected in a manner by establishing the third area through new legislation. The main content and principles to be included in the protection legislation are as follows. ① The range of persons of special types of employment should be open. ② Working conditions should be specifically prescribed in the new statutes. ③ Their labor’s three primary rights should be guaranteed as constitutional rights. ④ In principle, persons of special types of employment should be equally treated as employees in the area of social insurance law.

특수형태근로종사자의 노동법적 보호방안 연구

장의성 ( Eui Sung Jang ) 한국사회보장학회 2005 사회보장연구 Vol.21 No.2

The position of the courts on workers in special types of employment is that these workers cannot be protected by labor laws, because they are not considered workers defined by the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the only way to give them legal protection is by relying on legislative policies such as the enactment or amendment of labor laws. Specifically speaking, to give legal protection to workers in special employment, ① a special law can be established that classifies workforce into three parts, such as workers, workers in special employment and employers. ② The definition and status (Their status is double both as workers and the self-employed and falls in the middle between workers and employers) of workers in special employment can be stipulated by laws. ③ A legal body called the Diagnosis Committee for Workers in Special Employment, which makes a judgement, when there is a dispute over whether a certain worker should be categorized as a worker, a worker in special employment, or an employer can be set up within the Ministry of Labor, thereby being able to prevent legal insecurity that could happen before a court ruling is delivered. ④ Because of the unique nature of their double and middle status, workers in special employment are protected less by provisions on individual labor relations than general workers. ⑤ Moreover, provisions on collective labor relations fail to guarantee these workers three basic labor rights stipulated by the Constitution. However, under special laws based on Article 32 (Right to Work) and Article 21 (Freedom of Association) of the Constitution, workers in special types of employment are granted the right to organize a group by occupational area, the right to collective bargaining and the right to collective agreements while being prohibited from taking collective action.

근로자의 이동 중 재해에 관한 미국의 보호법리

장승혁(張承爀) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2011 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.30

In the United States, it is a generally recognized rule in workers' compensation cases that injuries incurred by an employee while going to or returning from his regular place of work are not compensable. The coming and going rule is grounded in recognition that injuries suffered while going to or coming from work are essentially similar to other injuries suffered off duty away from the employer's premises and, like those other injuries, are usually not work related. The theory behind the rule is that, ordinarily, the relationship of employer and employee is suspended from the time the employee leaves work to go home until he or she resumes work. In other words, the employment relationship does not begin until the employee enters the employer's premises. However, the general rule is subject to certain well-recognized exceptions that depend upon the nature, circumstances, and conditions of the particular employment, and the cause of the injury. One of the exceptions to the going and coming rule applies if an employee is on a special mission or has been asked to perform a special errand or special task for his or her employer. This exception applies if the injury is incurred while the employee is going to or returning from the regular place of work to perform a special task outside regular hours at the request of the employer and for the employer's benefit. The underlying rationale of the special task exception recognizes that special missions present risks far in excess of those encountered in regular employment routine. Also, special hazard or risk exception applies if the employment creates a special risk, and the employee will be entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in the scope of that risk. The special risk exception is sometimes stated as being that an injury is compensable if, before entry on the premises, an employee suffers injury from a special risk that is causally related to employment. The special risk exception applies if, but for the employment, the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, and if the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. In a number of jurisdictions, workers' compensation benefits have been awarded to workers who have suffered an injury en route to or from their home where the home is established as a "work situs" or a place of employment for the purposes of workers' compensation coverage. This can establish a good precedent for injuries on employees working from home. The study of the going and coming rule and its certain exceptions in each state's case must be very helpful for improving the protection coverage about injuries while commuting in Korea. Specifically, any reasonable doubt as to the applicability of a particular doctrine, precluding compensation, must be resolved in the employee's favor. Also, the going and coming rule and its exceptions require us to find risks related with the employment and analyze this. Through this process, cases that have risks far in excess of those encountered in regular employment routine will be compensable.

A study on ways to make employment improve through Big Data analysis of university information public

Lim, Heon-Wook,Kim, Sun-Jib The International Promotion Agency of Culture Tech 2021 International Journal of Advanced Culture Technolo Vol.9 No.3

The necessity of this study is as follows. A decrease in the number of newborns, an increase in the youth unemployment rate, and a decrease in the employment rate are having a fatal impact on universities. To help increase the employment rate of universities, we intend to utilize Big Data of university public information. Big data refers to the process of collecting and analyzing data, and includes all business processes of finding data, reprocessing information in an easy-to-understand manner, and selling information to people and institutions. Big data technology can be divided into technologies for storing, refining, analyzing, and predicting big data. The purpose of this study is to find the vision and special department of a university with a high employment rate by using big data technology. As a result of the study, big data was collected from 227 universities on www.academyinfo.go.kr site, We selected 130 meaningful universities and selected 25 universities with high employment rates and 25 universities with low employment rates. In conclusion, the university with a high employment rate can first be said to have a student-centered vision and university specialization. The reason is that, for universities with a high employment rate, the vision was to foster talents and specialize, whereas for universities with a low employment rate, regional bases took precedence. Second, universities with a high employment rate have a high interest in specialized departments. This is because, as a result of checking the presence or absence of a characterization plan, universities with a high employment rate were twice as high (21/7). Third, universities with high employment rates promote social needs and characterization. This is because the characteristic departments of universities with high employment rates are in the order of future technology and nursing and health, while universities with low employment rates promoted school-centered specialization in future technology and culture, tourism and art. In summary, universities with high employment rates showed high interest in student-centered vision and development of special departments for social needs.

특성화고 취업의 특징과 취업에 영향을 주는 학교 특징 분석

이쌍철,엄문영 한국교육개발원 2014 한국교육 Vol.41 No.3

This study had two purposes. One was to explore the characteristics of graduates’ employment at vocational schools in secondary education using the most recent data from the past five years. The other purpose was to analyze the differential factors in terms of employment rates among schools. The following are the results based on an analysis of the current conditions in vocational school employment. First, employment rates at specialized vocational high schools have increased by a significant amount as well as the achievement levels of Meister high schools. Second, the increase in the employment rates of male students are greater than the rates of female students. Third, the greatest marginal increases for industrial specialized schools in terms of employment rates can be seen among specialized vocational high schools. Fourth, in contrast with Meister high schools, the employment of students whose major does not match their employment sector has increased along with employment rates in specialized vocational high schools. With regard to positive school factors on employment this study produced several findings. First, a low dropout student ratio has a positive effect on high employment rates. Second, high participation rates in club activities and extracurricular after-school programs increase positive outcomes. Third, reducing school tuition fees and provisioning free meals for students increased students’ employment rates. This study produced educational policy to bolster graduate employment and further research is suggested. 본 연구는 두 가지 연구 목적을 가지고 수행되었다. 최근 5년간 중등단계 직업교육 기관을 졸업한 학생들의 취업현황 분석을 통해 그 특징을 살펴보는 것과 학교 간 취업률 차이를 설명하는 학교 특징을 분석하는 것이다. 먼저, 취업현황 분석결과 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 정부의 정책적 지원이 집중되는 마이스터고뿐만 아니라 특성화고의 취업비율이 큰 폭으로 상승하였다. 둘째, 남학생의 취업비율 증가폭이 여학생보다 컸다. 셋째, 공업계열 학교의 취업비율이 가장 높게 상승하였다. 넷째, 특성화고의 경우 마이스터고와는 달리 취업비율 증가와 더불어 전공불일치 분야 취업비율도 함께 증가하였다. 다음으로 취업에 긍정적 효과를 주는 학교 특징 분석결과 첫째, 학업중단률이 낮은 학교 일수록 학생 취업에는 긍정적인 효과를 준다. 둘째, 동아리 활동이 활발한 학교일수록, 특기적성 방과후학교에 참여하는 학생의 비율이 높은 학교일수록 취업비율이 높아졌다. 셋째, 학비감면비율과 무료급식지원 학생 수가 많은 학교일수록 취업비율이 높았다. 본 연구는 연구 결과를 바탕으로 취업확대 정책에 관한 제언과 후속연구를 위한 제언을 제시하였다.

청년고용정책 관련 법률에 관한 소고

양승광(Yang, Seunggwang) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學論叢 Vol.37 No.-

대한민국 헌법 제32조 제1항은 근로를 모든 국민의 권리로 규정하고, 이를 보장하기 위해 국가에게 고용 증진 노력 의무를 부여한다. 이에 따르면 모든 국민은 근로할 수 있는 권리를 보편적으로 보장받아야 한다. 만일 모든 국민들 중 어떤 특정 계층의 실업률이 두드러지게 높다면, 이들에 대한 국가의 고용 증진 노력이 미흡하거나, 노력의 방향 설정에 오류가 있음을 의미한다고 볼 수도 있다. 이 글은 청년고용정책 관련 법률 및 이에 근거한 사업들을 살펴봄으로써 현행 청년고용정책 방향의 타당성을 검토하였다. 법률에 나타나는 청년고용정책은 중소기업을 대상으로 하는 보조금 지원 및 청년을 대상으로 하는 직업능력개발훈련의 지원으로 구성된다. 중소기업에 보조금을 지원한다면, 그리고 청년구직자의 능력이 신장된다면, 청년취업이 늘어날 것이라는 생각이 전제되어 있어 보인다. 청년실업의 원인을 산업수요와 교육훈련의 괴리에서 찾고 있다. 이는 문제를 청년이 아닌 기업 관점에서 바라보았기 때문이다. 산업수요와 교육훈련의 괴리를 강조하면 할수록 효과성 있는 정책의 발견은 요원해진다. 전체 개인의 직업능력이 향상된다고 해서 일자리의 숫자가 늘어나는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 근로가 국민의 권리임을 상기한다면, 청년실업의 원인 또한 청년의 관점에서 바라보아야 한다. 이럴 경우에야만 청년들의 구직준비기간과 이직률을 줄여 청년실업률을 완화시킬 수 있는 정책이 나올 수 있게 된다. 청년의 관점에서 청년실업의 가장 큰 원인은 양질의 일자리 부족에 있다. 청년실업의 원인 중 하나로 이야기되는 학력 과잉 역시 양질의 일자리 부족에서 기인하는 청년들의 전략적 선택에 불과하다. 산업훈련과 교육훈련의 괴리 역시 일자리 부족을 전제로 청년들의 낮은 직업능력을 탓하는 것 역시 일자리 부족에서 기인한다. 따라서 청년고용정책의 방향은 양질의 일자리 공급으로 전환되어야 한다. Article 32 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that all citizens shall have the right to work and the State shall endeavor to promote the employment. Therefore, all citizens should be guaranteed a universal right to work. If a ceratin social stratum’s high unemployment rate is particularly high, it may signal the government’s lack of endeavor to promote employment or a misguided policy. This paper aims to assess the feasibility of the current youth employment policy of the government by examining related laws and the government programs implemented on the basis of the laws. Youth employment policies stated in laws are either in the form of providing state subsidies or supporting job skill training programs for the youth. These policies seem to have an assumption that state subsidies to small and medium sized companies and the enhanced capabilities of young job seekers would lead to growth in youth employment, concluding that youth unemployment is attributable to the training programs failing to meet employer needs. However, this approach is too focused on employer perspectives. Highlighting the failing training programs makes it only difficult to develop an effective youth employment policy because enhanced individual capabilities do not translate into job creation. As all citizens have a right to work, we should recognize the cause of the youth unemployment problem from the viewpoint of the youth. This is the only way we can formulate an effective policy that can help decrease the duration of job-searching the labor turnover rate, thereby reducing youth employment. From the standpoint of the youth, the main culprit of the problem is a shortage of decent works. Overeducation is often cited as a cause of youth unemployment. Nonetheless, from the perspective of the youth, receiving higher education is just one of the strategies to land a decent work. The real cause of youth employment lies in job shortages, not in training programs or skill mismatch. Thus, youth employment policy should shift towards providing decent works.

시용기간중의 법률관계에 관한 연구

최영진 ( Young Jin Choi ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.3

최근 고용형태가 다양화됨에 따른 시용, 수습, 인턴 등과 같은 소위 특수한 고용관계가 일반화되고 있다. 특히 정식근로계약을 체결하기 이전에 근로자의 능력, 적성을 평가하기 위하여 시험적으로 고용하는 시용제도가 있다. 시용은 근로자가 근로계약을 체결하고 입사를 했지만 시용기간을 두어 근로자의 적성과 업무능력을 판단한 후 정규사원으로서의 근로관계로 전환할지의 여부를 차후에 최종결정하는 제도다. 시용은 용어 자체가 법 규정에 명시되어 있는 것이 아니라 학설과 판례에 의하여 정의되고 있는 개념이다. 즉 시용은 근로기준법을 포함한 노동관계법제상에 이러한 고용을 규제할 수 있는 명확한 규범이 존재하지 않아 제반 분쟁이 야기되고 있다. 따라서 특수한 근로관계를 규율하는 법률적 기준을 마련해야 할 필요성이 높아지고 있다. 왜냐하면 사실상 이들에게 부당해고에 가까운 상황이 발생하더라도 현행 노동관계법상 관련규정이 없어 분쟁해결이 쉽지 않으며 근로자에게 일방적 불이익을 초래할 가능성이 높기 때문이다. 이러한 문제의식에 기초하여, 본 연구에서는 시용근로자의 법률관계에 대하여 살펴보았고, 이를 바탕으로 향후 시용에 관한 입법에 있어서 고려되어야 할 사항을 제시하였다. 그 내용은 다음과 같다. 첫째 시용기간은 합리적인 기간(예컨대 3개월이내)으로 제한되어야 한다. 둘째 시용근로자도 정규사원과 동일하게 근로기준법 제23조(해고 등의 제한)와 제26조(해고의 예고)가 적용되어야 한다. 또한 해고제한의 정당성 판단기준을 유형별로 예시할 필요가 있다. 셋째 최저임금법상의 최저임금액규정이 정비되어야 한다. 넷째 시용기간의 연장 또는 갱신은 원칙적으로 금지되어야 한다. According to the diversity of the employment pattern recently, the special employment relationship such as so-called trial employment, probationary worker, internship, etc. becomes generalized. Especially, there is a trial employment system which employ a worker tentatively in order to evaluate the worker`s capability and aptitude before making the labor relationship contract. This trial employment system is that a worker`s employment is determinated ultimately after evaluating the worker`s capability and aptitude during the trial employment period though he is employed with making an employment contract. The term, trial employment itself, is not specified in the law, but it is a notion defined by theory and judicial precedents. In other words, the trial employment is causing all complication due to the clear norms which regulate such a trial employment on all Labor Relations Act including Labor Standard Act doesn`t exist. Therefore, Needs of the preparing the legal standard regulating these special labor relationships are growing. The reason why is because it is difficult to dispute resolution due to the current procedural labor rules which protect the workers when the really close kind of unfair dismissal situation is occurred to them doesn`t existed. Basis to these critical mind, this study has scrutinized employer`s legal relation. Basis to this, this study suggested that details should be considered into when devising trial employment legislation afterwards. It is as in the following, first, the trial employment term should be limited to the rational term(ex. within three months). second, the Article 23(Restriction on Dismissal, etc.) and Article 26(Advance Notice of Dismissal) should applies pari passu to both trial employees and regular workers. besides, Legitimacy Judgement Standard of Restriction on Dismissal need to be illustrated by categories. third, Minimum Wage Rate Rule on MINIMUM WAGE ACT should be organized. fourth, the extension or the renewal of the trial employment period should be prohibited in principle.

특수형태근로 종사 여부에 따른 작업위험요인과 건강상 문제의 차이 분석

신새미 ( Saemi Shin ),변상훈 ( Sang Hoon Byeon ) 한국산업보건학회 (구 한국산업위생학회) 2018 한국산업보건학회지 Vol.28 No.3

Objectives: The object of this paper is to analyze difference of general and occupational characters, risk exposure and ill health symptom depending on the special type of employment. Methods: 50,007 participants from Fourth Korean Working Condition Survey conducted in 2014 was analyzed. Cross-tabulation analysis was conducted for deriving difference in general and occupational characters, mulitvariate logistic regression analysis was conducted after controlling general and occupational characters for deriving difference in risk exposure and ill health symptom depending on the special type of employment. Results: In the special type of employment, female, ages of 50, education levels of high school, monthly income of 2,000-3,000 thousand won, job types of sales person, enterprises of less than 100 workers, working duration of 2-10 years and long working hours worker's proportion was higher than general employment. Physical(OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.94) and ergonomic (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.42-0.55) risk exposure was lower, psychological(OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.54-2.04) risk exposure was higher than general employment, and there was no significant difference between the special type of employment and general employment in chemical/biological risk exposure(OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.94-1.20) and ill health symptom(OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.09). Conclusions: This article offers the analysing difference between the special type of employment and general employment using huge size cross sectional data represent Korean employees.