earticle

영어

The labor laws that regulate the individual labor relationships, including the Labor Standards Act and the others of the like, do not have any regulations on the prescription of the disciplinary action. As a result, this gets regulated according to the self-governing standards within the individual place of the business like the employment regulations and the others of the like. And whether or not the regulations related to the prescription of the disciplinary action should be included in the self-governing standards is according to the will of the business owner only. In case there is no separate regulation regarding the prescription of a disciplinary action, there is no choice but to interpret the time period in which the disciplinary action on an illegal action by a worker by the business owner is possible is the equivalent time period during which it is anticipated that the user will no longer engage in the disciplinary action as a matter of the socially accepted idea. However, as such an abstract interpretation makes a worker who is the subject of a disciplinary action stay in an unstable position for a long period of time, it is insufficient in terms of the protection of the worker. Especially, there can be a problem with regard to the fairness with the government officials-related laws, including the National Government Officials Act that has been regulating the prescriptions of the disciplinary actions regarding the government officials. As a result, on the level of the protection of the workers through the predictability and on the level of the legal stability, the matters related to the prescription of the disciplinary action must be amended in the direction that is regulated by the current labor-related laws. Specifically, among the matters that must be included indispensably in the employment regulations that have been regulated in Article 93 of the Labor Standards Act, based on the matters related to the restrictions or the other matters that will be applied to the concerned business or to all the workers at the place of business, we can try thinking of a method that foreshadows the detailed items in the Enforcement Regulations of the Labor Standards Act and that includes the matters related to the prescription of the disciplinary action here. Also, regarding the time period of the prescription of a disciplinary action, it is rational to regulate it within the scope of the prescription of the disciplinary action that has been regulated by the current National Government Officials Act. There is a need to examine the solution measures regarding a few interpretive and realistic problems that are issued in relation to the management of the prescription of a disciplinary action. First, one must be prudent in making an illegal action in the past, regarding which a disciplinary action cannot be taken because the time of the prescription of the disciplinary action has passed, into a material for deciding on the disciplinary action regarding the illegal action that is taking place at present. Second, for the prescription of a disciplinary action to begin, the occurrence of the right to the disciplinary action on the part of the business owner must be premised. As a result, regarding the starting point of the reckoning of the prescription of a disciplinary action, which is generally regulated as the day on which the reason for a disciplinary action and the others of the like have occurred, it is desirable to interpret it as the day on which the business owner knew or could know the fact of the illegal action by the worker. Lastly, in the case of extending the time period of the prescription of a disciplinary action through a revision of the employment regulations to a longer period of time than previously and regarding an illegal act committed by a worker before the amendment of the employment regulations, the application of the regulations on the prescription of the disciplinary action that have been changed is not allowed.

한국어

사용자의 징계권의 행사 결과 근로자는 임금청구권 등 근로관계에서 사용자에 대해 발생하는 특정 권리에 대해 제약을 받게 되며, 나아가서는 해고 등을 통해 근로제공의 기회를 영구적으로 상실할 수 있다. 따라서 사용자의 징계권은 그 성질과 다양한 견해에도 불구하고 본질은 근로자에 대한 사용자의 권리에 해당하므로 이를 행사함에 있어서 시기적 제한을 받아야 하며, 나아가 근로자의 예측가능성과 법적 안정성을 보장하기 위하여 징계 시효를 포함한 징계권의 행사와 관련된 내용은 법규범을 통해 명확히 규정되어 있어야 한다. 그러나 ｢근로기준법｣ 등 현행 노동관계법령은 이와 관련된 규정을 전혀 두지 않고 있는바, 취업규칙 등 개별 사업장 내의 자치규범에 징계시효와 관련된 내용을 포함시킬 지의 여부는 전적으로 사용자의 자의에 달려있다. 이와 같이 근로자의 불안정한 지위를 사용자의 일방적 결정에 맡겨두는 것은 ‘헌법에 따라 근로조건의 기준을 정함으로써 근로자의 기본적 생활을 보장, 향상시키며 균형 있는 국민경제의 발전을 꾀하는 것을 목적’으로 하는 노동법 특히 ｢근로기준법｣의 이념에 배치되는 것으로서, 그 법적 규율의 필요성이 절실히 요청된다고 할 것이다. 징계시효의 규율은 실정노동법령을 통해 강제하는 형식을 취하는 것이 적절하며, 구체적으로는 ｢근로기준법｣ 제93조의 ‘제재에 관한 사항 등’을 동법 시행령 및 시행규칙을 통해 개별 사업장의 취업규칙에서 이를 구체화하도록 만드는 것이 타당하다. 징계시효의 상한선은 개별 사업장의 특성을 고려하되, ｢국가공무원법｣ 등 공무원에 대한 징계를 규정하고 있는 법령의 규정을 참고하여 법령으로 규정해야 한다. 한편 징계시효제도의 운용과정에서 징계시효의 기산점, 시효의 중단, 징계절차 시효규정과의 관계 등과 같은 다양한 쟁점이 발생할 수 있는바, 본 연구에서는 종래의 학설과 판례의 입장을 분석하고 그 해결방안을 검토하여 향후 규율 과정에서의 이뤄질 수 있는 논의의 단초로 삼고자 하였다.