물리보안 인적통제수단인 청원경찰 복무관리를 위한 규범정립에 관한 법적 고찰 : 서울중앙지방법원 2023.1.19.선고 2020나98515 판결을 중심으로 = A Legal Consideration on the Establishment of Norms for Management of the Service of the Police Assigned for Special Guard Which is the Means of Human Control for Physical Security : Around the Judgment for the Case Number 2020Na98515 Dated Jan. 19, 2023

국문 초록 (Abstract)

정부는 2017. 7. 20. 고용노동부가 발표한 공공부문 비정규직 근로자 정규직 전환 가이드 라인에 따라 정규직 전환정책을 추진하였다. 이에 따라 국가기관이 관리하는 국가보안(중 요)시설에서 근무하는 간접고용 방식의 특수경비용역 근로자들을 직접고용 방식인 청원경 찰로 전환하기 위한 절차가 진행되었다. 국가기관인 피고는 정규직 전환을 앞두고 있는 청원경찰의 복무규율을 목적으로 청원경찰 복무규정(취업규칙) 제정을 위해 피고와 청원 경찰 전환예정자들 간 협의진행 및 의견 수렴 등의 절차를 이행하였다. 새롭게 제정된 청 원경찰 복무규정에는 이들의 보수 및 경력산정 등을 획정하는 별도의 규정을 두고 있으나 청원경찰로 전환된 원고들은 다른 직종의 공무직에게 적용되는 공무직 관리규정이 적용되 고 청원경찰 복무규정은 취업규칙의 불이익한 변경에 해당할 뿐만 아니라 근로기준법 제6 조 소정의 합리적 이유 없는 차별적 대우에 해당한다는 점 등을 이유로 해당 중요시설에서 기존의 특수경비원으로 재직한 경력 등의 모든 경력을 보수 산정에 포함하여 지급하여야 한다는 취지의 임금청구 소송을 대한민국을 상대로 제기하였다. 하지만 대상판결(제2심) 및 대법원은 원고들에게는 청원경찰 복무규정에 따라 별도로 획정된 경력만이 인정되고 설령 원고들의 주장대로 취업규칙의 변경에 해당하더라도 이는 근로조건을 전체적으로 비 교할 때 사회통념상 합리성이 인정되고, 나아가 원고들이 주장하는 근로기준법 제6조 소정 의 합리적 이유 없는 차별적 대우에 해당하지 않는다고 판시하고 있다

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The government pushed ahead with the policy for converting to regular workers in accordance with the guidelines for converting to regular workers in the public sectors announced by the Ministry of Employment and Labor on Jul. 20, 2017. Accordingly, the procedures were implemented for converting the workers for special guard service belonging to service businesses in the indirect employment method working for the national security (critical) facilities controlled by the national agencies to the police assigned for special guard in the direct employment method. The accused being a national agency performed the procedures such as proceeding with consultations and acceptance of opinions between the accused and the persons expected to be converted to the police assigned for special guard in order to enact the service regulations (rules of employment) for the purpose of the discipline of service of the police assigned for special faced with conversion to regular workers. While the newly enacted service regulations of the police assigned for special guard have separate provisions determining calculation of their remuneration and careers, the plaintiffs who were converted to the police assigned for special guard were subject to the management rules of the public service which were intended to apply to the public service of other types o occupations, and the service regulations of the police assigned for special guard not only corresponds to the discriminatory treatment without any prescribed reasonable ground under Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act as well as corresponds to an unfavorable change of the rules of employment. For these reasons, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for claiming wages against the Republic of Korea with the intent that all the careers including the careers servicing as special guards in the past at the relevant critical facilities an unfavorable change of the rules of employment should be paid for by including in the calculation of the remunerations. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court (2nd trial) and the Supreme Court judged that, even though the careers separately determined in accordance with the service regulations of the police assigned for special guard were recognized and corresponded to the change of the rules of employment as claimed by the plaintiffs, when the working conditions are compared on the whole, their reasonableness under the social common notions is recognized, and further they do not correspond to any discriminatory treatment without any prescribed reasonable cause under Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act as claimed by the plaintiff.