earticle

영어

The court of this case denied the labor of subcontract and acknowledged the illegal dispatched labor to the indirect processes in the motor industry. irrespective of the use of word: subcontract. If there is the order or direction of user-employer to the workers, the labor belongs to the dispatched labor from viewpoint of employee dispatching or the Protection of Dispatched-Employee Act(hereafter the ‘PDEA’). So, user-employer has the duty to hire the dispatched workers. If user-employer doesn’t hire them, they have the right to ask for the verdict in substitution for the user-employer expression of will. So that verdict is found in the court, an employment relation between user-employer and dispatched workers is established. Two problems is proposed on this case: First, for it is difficult to distinguish the order or direction of user-employer’s from that of the contractor, the problem with contract for dispatched labor or contract for any construction work. If the company that dispatchs the workers independently exists and user-employer don’t directly order the workers but contractor. the legal relation between user-employer and workers is that of subcontract. That is to avoid the judgement based on the element of dependent labor relation. Second, PDEA has the clause that user-employer should directly hire the dispatched workers in case of illegal dispatched labor. the court made an interpretation of this clause as concluding employment contract. I don’t agree court’s understanding of this clause. This clause is the meaning that user-employer has just obligation to hire the dispatched worker, because the administrative fine for negligence is imposed on him in case of the user- employer’s violation of the clause.