인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
The Supreme Court of Korea held on March, 2012 that a periodical bonus paid in every three months should be included in a regular rate under certain requirments. The case law brings very hot discussions to the Korean industrial society.
So an author suggests some ideas for a legislative reform with respect to a current regular rate system in this article.
First, where an employer does not pay additional compensation based on the regular rate against extended work, night work and holiday work, he owes penal responsibility under the Labor Standards Act. A definition of the regular rate is, nevertheless, stipulated not just in the Act, but only in its executive order. A periodicity and an uniformity are, futhermore, only stipulated as a definition of a regular late. Then I suggest that the definition of the regular rate should be stipulated not in the order, but in the Act. And the Act or its executive order must positively provides kinds of bonus, benefit and the other to be included in the regular rate. Simultaneously, of course, the Act or its executive order also excludes another kinds of bonus etc. from the regular rate.
Second, it is possible for an employer to grant a replacement holiday in stead of paying an additional compensation by an agreement between an employer and an union qualified or a representative of employees. In this case, however, some limitations on the agreement should be introduced, and at least some part of compensations must be secured for an employee concerned to curtail working hours.
Third, where a scope of a regular rate is extended by an amendment of the Act, a rate of an additional compensation that is now 50% of the regular rate may need to be adjusted to the 50% and less.
So an author suggests some ideas for a legislative reform with respect to a current regular rate system in this article.
First, where an employer does not pay additional compensation based on the regular rate against extended work, night work and holiday work, he owes penal responsibility under the Labor Standards Act. A definition of the regular rate is, nevertheless, stipulated not just in the Act, but only in its executive order. A periodicity and an uniformity are, futhermore, only stipulated as a definition of a regular late. Then I suggest that the definition of the regular rate should be stipulated not in the order, but in the Act. And the Act or its executive order must positively provides kinds of bonus, benefit and the other to be included in the regular rate. Simultaneously, of course, the Act or its executive order also excludes another kinds of bonus etc. from the regular rate.
Second, it is possible for an employer to grant a replacement holiday in stead of paying an additional compensation by an agreement between an employer and an union qualified or a representative of employees. In this case, however, some limitations on the agreement should be introduced, and at least some part of compensations must be secured for an employee concerned to curtail working hours.
Third, where a scope of a regular rate is extended by an amendment of the Act, a rate of an additional compensation that is now 50% of the regular rate may need to be adjusted to the 50% and less.
#통상임금
#가산임금
#연장근로
#야간근로
#휴일근로
#regular rate
#additional compensation
#extended work
#night work
#holiday work
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- Ⅰ. 서설
- Ⅱ. 우리나라의 통상임금 법리의 불확실성
- Ⅲ. 일본에서의 통상임금과 정기성 판단
- Ⅳ. 우리나라와 일본의 통상임금 법리의 차이와 입법제안
- Ⅴ. 결론
- 참고문헌
- 〈Abstract〉
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-330-002466715
