지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
I tried to introduce the EPA in U.S. in this article. I already had researched “equal pay for equal value of work” in ILO, U.N., E.U., Japan, Korea, and the research had been published in Korea. So It is able to be said that this article is to perform the remaining task in light of comparative studies with respect to the “equal pay”.
Conclusion are follows:
First, though the principle of “the equal pay for equal value of work(called also ‘comparable worth’ in U.S.)” is now being recognized by the statutes in many countries, the Supreme Court in Gunther Case emphasized that it was not endorsing the principle. And then it was a very different point when I compared the EPA of U.S. with the statutes of E.U., Japan, Korea or the rules of ILO, U.N.
Second, the pay discrimination based on sex is brought in the Court under both the EPA and the Title VII. There is, however, a gap between the EPA and the Title VII in its coverage each other. I suggested that their coverage needs to be equal to protect or overcome sex discrimination as soon as possible because the principle of the equal pay for equal work is a social justice established in our world.
Third, the equal work involves jobs, in addition to the performance of which requires equal skill, equal effort, equal responsibility, performed under working conditions that are similar. Even though the comparable worth is not recognized by the Courts, the test of substantial equal works is found in many cases concerned by the federal Courts. Nevertheless, an employer's reliance on a free market system in which employees in male-dominated jobs are compensated at a higher rate than employees in dissimilar female-dominated jobs is not in and of itself a violation of the EPA and the Title Ⅶ.
Fourth, under the EPA, in the pay difference cases, the employer avoids liability only by establishing that the pay difference was attributable to systems of seniority, merit, quality or quantity of work, or factor other than sex. A standard of the factor of the “other than sex” is important especially because this exception for the difference in pay between male and female is ambiguous itself, and so the exception is being argued well by employers in real. The Courts, however, have interpreted the exception narrowly.
Finally, the Korea Labor Commission performs roles of resolution of labor disputes with respect to collective labor relations(unfair labor practice or adjustment of labor relation's dispute), a labor contract(transference or disciplinary, and dismissal etc.), a discrimination based on non-regular workers engaging in jobs dispatched or employed with fixed-period labor contract or part-time. In spite of its many roles, unlike the EEOC, the Commission does not has a right to sue theses disputes against the Courts under its authorization. And then, I suggested that, in cases of labor disputes above, under some requirements, a right to sue against the Courts by the Commission should be granted by amending the Labor Commission Act of Korea.
Conclusion are follows:
First, though the principle of “the equal pay for equal value of work(called also ‘comparable worth’ in U.S.)” is now being recognized by the statutes in many countries, the Supreme Court in Gunther Case emphasized that it was not endorsing the principle. And then it was a very different point when I compared the EPA of U.S. with the statutes of E.U., Japan, Korea or the rules of ILO, U.N.
Second, the pay discrimination based on sex is brought in the Court under both the EPA and the Title VII. There is, however, a gap between the EPA and the Title VII in its coverage each other. I suggested that their coverage needs to be equal to protect or overcome sex discrimination as soon as possible because the principle of the equal pay for equal work is a social justice established in our world.
Third, the equal work involves jobs, in addition to the performance of which requires equal skill, equal effort, equal responsibility, performed under working conditions that are similar. Even though the comparable worth is not recognized by the Courts, the test of substantial equal works is found in many cases concerned by the federal Courts. Nevertheless, an employer's reliance on a free market system in which employees in male-dominated jobs are compensated at a higher rate than employees in dissimilar female-dominated jobs is not in and of itself a violation of the EPA and the Title Ⅶ.
Fourth, under the EPA, in the pay difference cases, the employer avoids liability only by establishing that the pay difference was attributable to systems of seniority, merit, quality or quantity of work, or factor other than sex. A standard of the factor of the “other than sex” is important especially because this exception for the difference in pay between male and female is ambiguous itself, and so the exception is being argued well by employers in real. The Courts, however, have interpreted the exception narrowly.
Finally, the Korea Labor Commission performs roles of resolution of labor disputes with respect to collective labor relations(unfair labor practice or adjustment of labor relation's dispute), a labor contract(transference or disciplinary, and dismissal etc.), a discrimination based on non-regular workers engaging in jobs dispatched or employed with fixed-period labor contract or part-time. In spite of its many roles, unlike the EEOC, the Commission does not has a right to sue theses disputes against the Courts under its authorization. And then, I suggested that, in cases of labor disputes above, under some requirements, a right to sue against the Courts by the Commission should be granted by amending the Labor Commission Act of Korea.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 미국의 동일노동 동일임금관련 법제도
Ⅲ. 동일노동 동일임금 법리
Ⅳ. 구제절차 및 구제내용
Ⅴ. 결론
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (9)
참고문헌 신청
2. [단행본] - Mack A. Player / 2004 / Federal Law of Employment Discrimination / Thomson and West
3. [단행본] - Gwyneth Pitt / 2007 / Employment Law / Tomson : 180 ~
4. [단행본] - David P. Twomey / 2001 / Labor Law & Employment Law / West
5. [단행본] - Harold S. Lewis / 1999 / Employment Discrimination Law and Practice / West : 469 ~ 495
6. [단행본] - Patrick J. Cihon / 1999 / Employment and Labor Law / West
3. [단행본] - Gwyneth Pitt / 2007 / Employment Law / Tomson : 180 ~
4. [단행본] - David P. Twomey / 2001 / Labor Law & Employment Law / West
5. [단행본] - Harold S. Lewis / 1999 / Employment Discrimination Law and Practice / West : 469 ~ 495
6. [단행본] - Patrick J. Cihon / 1999 / Employment and Labor Law / West
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
남녀 동일가치노동의 판단기준
법학논집
2006 .01
-
남녀고용평등법상 동일임금법리상의 한계와 개선과제
노동법학
2012 .12
-
동일가치노동 동일임금원칙과 한국적 과제
강원법학
2009 .06
-
남녀 동일가치노동에 대한 동일임금원칙에 관한 연구
노동법논총
2008 .12
-
日本の「同一労働同一賃金」論再考
일본근대학연구
2017 .01
-
동일가치노동·동일임금원칙에 관한 쟁점
노동법학
2003 .12
-
제3기 헌법재판소 평등권에 관한 판결 성향 분석
서강법학
2008 .06
-
영국 동일임금법에 관한 연구 -판례의 태도를 중심으로-
경영법률
2009 .01
-
동일가치노동 동일임금 판결의 한계 및 개선과제 : 대법원 2013. 5. 9. 선고 2010다23821 판결(효성사건)
이화젠더법학
2014 .06
-
한국의 「재판 외 노동분쟁해결제도(ADR)」에 관한 연구
강원법학
2010 .06
-
일본의 비정규직에 대한 「균등·균형대우」의 판단 법리 : 최근 최고재판소 판례를 소재로 하여
산업관계연구
2019 .03
-
사용종속관계의 개념 및 기준
노동법논총
2018 .04
-
노동분쟁해소기능의 실효성 제고 방안
노동법포럼
2015 .11
-
日本企業の長時間労働問題に関する一考察‒労働時間の経営学的アプローチ‒
일본근대학연구
2020 .01
-
사법제도개혁에 따른 노동분쟁제도의 재정립 : 노동법원설립의 당위성에 관하여
노동법논총
2005 .12
-
일본의 노동법개혁과 그 시사점
강원법학
2017 .10
-
노동법 상 차별 금지 법리에 대한 소고 — ‘차별’과 ‘격차’의 개념 구별을 중심으로 —
노동법논총
2020 .04
-
근로계약법 제정과 적용대상에 관한 고찰
노동법논총
2008 .12
-
일본 비정규고용의 임금격차해소를 위한 ‘동일노동 동일임금’ 지침의 개요와 과제
산업관계연구
2017 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-336-003360092