earticle

영어

Since long ago, discussions have continued to correct the discrimination according to the form of employment, non-regular employment in South Korea and Japan. In addition, at the center of the discussions, there was the principle of “equal pay for equal (value) work” that if one does the same work (labor with the same value), one should get the same pay (equal treatment). The principle played an important role in systematizing the system for the prohibition of sexual discrimination in employment in South Korea and Japan, but it was not acknowledged as the ground for the regulation of discrimination according to the form of employment. However, the increase of non-regular employment causes various social problems such as low birth rate and aging phenomenon as well as the increase of the population of poverty or the increase of social security costs. Like this, South Korea and Japan sought a solution for a legislative policy to correct the gap in the treatment of non-regular employees with a similar historical background and have shown different aspects in the process of developing legislation. To compare legislation in the two countries, briefly, concerning labor conditions, Japan regulates the treatment of non-regular workers by equal treatment and balanced treatment (prohibition of unreasonable labor condition) as compared to regular workers and judges the irrationality of discrimination, considering the contents of job, the range of placement change and other circumstances. On the other hand, South Korea does not have a regulation on the equal treatment of regular and non-regular workers and just prohibits disadvantageous treatment without a reasonable cause, concerning the gap in labor conditions, etc. (balanced treatment) The reasonable cause is not specified in the law, concretely, but it depends on interpretation. Since in South Korea, discriminatory treatment is judged, according to whether there is “rationality” or not, the judgment of rationality is the core of this system, and preparing unified standards is an important challenge. In this sense, the contents of the guidelines for equal pay for equal work in Japan or the outline of the bill, which promote the clarification of the judgment of irrationality, can be referred in judging discrimination remedy. In the meantime, in South Korea, discussions continue, concerning the equal treatment of regular workers and non-regular workers. Concretely, it is left to an interpretation, whether the form of employment should be included in “social status” in the regulations on equal treatment (Article 6) of the Labor Standards Act, or whether the cases in which there are no “reasonable causes” in the fixed-term and part-time employee protection act can be subject to equal treatment. In addition, how to resolve the gap in the treatment between regular workers and non-regular workers, which depends on interpretation like this, comes to the fore as a task, legislatively, so it is judged that precedents in Japan can be referred for South Korea’s legislative policies.