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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제23호
- 발행연도
- 2018.2
- 수록면
- 313 - 365 (53page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2018.02.23.313
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In the US a norm ruling a growing multi-party employment relationship has been the joint employment doctrine, which means that if multi-employers involve a principal terms of employment of an employee, on the condition that some requirement are fulfilled, every party of all multi-employers is considered as an employer under the labor law, and liabilities of labor relations are imposed on them.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (F.L.S.A.) considers it inappropriate for protection of workers and fair competition that liabilities are imposed only a certain employer if multiple employers are involved in a single labor of an employee. Subcontractors’ financial condition can have an negative effect on the employees regardless of liabilities to pay, therefore, for achieving objectives of the law F.L.S.A. puts joint liabilities on prime contractors if they meet the economical substance criteria. Under the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.), whose objective is to establish fair union-management relations, such as prohibition of unfair labor practices and maintaining union-management balance of power, a prime contractor are regarded as a joint employer by regulative criteria of the common law if there’s chance that he commits unfair labor practices. Recently, like Browning Perry’s case, which means under the collective labor relations the requirements for an joint employer are significantly alleviated, N.L.R.A. has been reinforced the joint employment doctrine and dealt actively with a issue of a growing joint employment.
Due to the difference of the legal definition of “employer”, it is difficult to apply the joint employment discussion in the U. S. to Korea without any adjustment. But, they have a common interest in the background of the discussion, which is nothing less than the issue of how to put employers’ liability under the labor law on user-companies under the labor relation with multiple employers. Therefore, the joint employment doctrine in the US gives us many implications of how to expand to one who is not a party of an employment contract the liabilities of employers under the labor relation of multiple employers.
The joint employment doctrine has the many implications for Korean labor law, which are the necessity for the doctrine regulates the whole indirect employment irrespective of types of contracts and for imposing joint liability to multiple employers in spite of separated employment relations, and considering fair competition among companies as the reason for the foregoing, etc.
The measures that should be considered for introduction and where the joint employment doctrine could be applied are as follows: imposing joint liability on prime contractors or franchise chains, which forces them to be taken on the liability for paying the minimum wage to indirect employment workers, or imposing the duty to bargain on user-companies on leased employees’ request when subcontractors are changed, or commit unfair labor practices.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (F.L.S.A.) considers it inappropriate for protection of workers and fair competition that liabilities are imposed only a certain employer if multiple employers are involved in a single labor of an employee. Subcontractors’ financial condition can have an negative effect on the employees regardless of liabilities to pay, therefore, for achieving objectives of the law F.L.S.A. puts joint liabilities on prime contractors if they meet the economical substance criteria. Under the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.), whose objective is to establish fair union-management relations, such as prohibition of unfair labor practices and maintaining union-management balance of power, a prime contractor are regarded as a joint employer by regulative criteria of the common law if there’s chance that he commits unfair labor practices. Recently, like Browning Perry’s case, which means under the collective labor relations the requirements for an joint employer are significantly alleviated, N.L.R.A. has been reinforced the joint employment doctrine and dealt actively with a issue of a growing joint employment.
Due to the difference of the legal definition of “employer”, it is difficult to apply the joint employment discussion in the U. S. to Korea without any adjustment. But, they have a common interest in the background of the discussion, which is nothing less than the issue of how to put employers’ liability under the labor law on user-companies under the labor relation with multiple employers. Therefore, the joint employment doctrine in the US gives us many implications of how to expand to one who is not a party of an employment contract the liabilities of employers under the labor relation of multiple employers.
The joint employment doctrine has the many implications for Korean labor law, which are the necessity for the doctrine regulates the whole indirect employment irrespective of types of contracts and for imposing joint liability to multiple employers in spite of separated employment relations, and considering fair competition among companies as the reason for the foregoing, etc.
The measures that should be considered for introduction and where the joint employment doctrine could be applied are as follows: imposing joint liability on prime contractors or franchise chains, which forces them to be taken on the liability for paying the minimum wage to indirect employment workers, or imposing the duty to bargain on user-companies on leased employees’ request when subcontractors are changed, or commit unfair labor practices.
목차
Ⅰ. 공동사용자 개념 논의의 필요성
Ⅱ. 미국 고용노동법상 공동사용자 법리
Ⅲ. 공동사용자 판단 기준
Ⅳ. 공정근로기준법 등에서의 공동사용자 법리의 적용
Ⅴ. 연방노동관계법(NLRA)에서의 공동사용자 법리의 적용
Ⅵ. 미국 공동사용자 법리 논의의 한국적 함의
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
박제성 / 2017 / 프랜차이즈에 관한 시론 ― 지배종속적 상사관계에서 지배종속적 노동관계까지 ― / 노동법연구 (43):81~107
박제성 / 2016 / 플랫폼 노동 혹은 크라우드 워크 / 국제노동브리프 14(8)
김희성 / 2012 / 미국노동법에서의 공동사용자이론에 관한 연구 / 노동법학 (44):95~127
김미영 / 2010 / 미국 연방노동법의 공동고용 원리에 관한 연구 / 노동법학 (33):137~161
강현주 / 2015 / 미국 고용법과 노동법에서 사업주 책임법리(‘공동사용자원칙’ 등)의 의미와 역할 / 서울법학 22(3):163~192
박제성 / 2016 / 플랫폼 노동 혹은 크라우드 워크 / 국제노동브리프 14(8)
김희성 / 2012 / 미국노동법에서의 공동사용자이론에 관한 연구 / 노동법학 (44):95~127
김미영 / 2010 / 미국 연방노동법의 공동고용 원리에 관한 연구 / 노동법학 (33):137~161
강현주 / 2015 / 미국 고용법과 노동법에서 사업주 책임법리(‘공동사용자원칙’ 등)의 의미와 역할 / 서울법학 22(3):163~192
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
원청은 하청노동조합의 단체교섭의 상대방으로서 사용자인가? - 택배노동조합사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2021 .11
-
사업 네트워크와 사용자 책임
노동법학
2022 .03
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
중국의 사용자책임에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법 제35조를 중심으로
무역상무연구
2018 .02
-
프랜차이즈 가맹본부의 공동사용자성 여부
노동법포럼
2020 .11
-
사용자책임의 실효적 개선 방안 : 한국과 중국을 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .09
-
다면적 노무제공관계에서 부분적･중첩적 사용자성 ― 중앙노동위원회 결정의 의의와 과제 ―
노동법학
2021 .12
-
멀티잡 종사자의 노동법적 규제
노동법연구
2019 .09
-
헌법이 보장하는 단체교섭권 실현을 위한 ‘사용자’ 찾기
노동법연구
2022 .09
-
간접고용과 노동쟁의 조정의 쟁점
노동법학
2020 .09
-
프랜차이즈 관계와 노동법의 적용 - 미국법의 최근 동향을 중심으로 -
노동법학
2019 .06
-
파견법 상 직접고용의무를 둘러 싼 법적 쟁점 재검토
노동법논총
2018 .04
-
미국 연방노동관계법상 공동사용자 지위 결정에 관한 규칙 개정의 의미 - 초기업별 교섭에서 사용자 지위 및 교섭의무 판단을 둘러싼 쟁점을 중심으로 -
산업관계연구
2024 .06
-
지금 왜 다시 사용자인가?: 플랫폼 노동관계에서 사용자 찾기
노동법포럼
2020 .11
-
하청노동관계의 법적 구성 : 판례분석을 중심으로
노동법학
2015 .12
-
사용종속관계의 개념 및 기준
노동법논총
2018 .04
-
근로기준법상 사용자의 식별 - 대상판결: 서울고등법원 2023. 12. 21. 선고 2022누56601 판결 -
노동연구
2024 .06
-
미국에서 공동사용자 법리의 형성과 전개
성균관법학
2018 .09
-
근로관계에서 사용자의 취업시킬 의무와 근로자의 휴식
법학연구
2017 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-360-001214419