근로기준법상 근로시간 개념에 대한 정의 및 유연성 재고

Abstract

There are two main purposes for work-hours law: i) ensuring guaranteed protection of workers’ health and ii) ensuring workers’ work–life balance. work hours law in Korea consists primarily of the Labor Standards Act. After its enactment in 1953, discussions and changes related to the workhours law focused majorly on reducing standard work hours. In addition, flexible work hours and the protection of workers’ right to health have been reinforced recently. However, establishing such a legal system in a state wherein work hours are vaguely defined and expecting it to be effective is futile. The ineffectiveness of the system against this backdrop stems from the fact that although several revisions in the law—together with social discussions and research—take place with regard to the work hours law, there still exists considerable irrationality surrounding the develop- ment of the work hours law.BR An analysis of the theories and precedents contained in the current legislation is also fruitful in determining the implications of work hours; however, it is particularly imperative to review Article 50 Clause 3 of the law. Two conceptual constituents of this Clause are as follows: (1) the direction and supervision of the employer (right to dispose of work hours) and (2) labor relations and obligation of work. A diversification of the concept of work hours may be facilitated based on the effectiveness and significance of these factors. work hours may be classified into the following types: (1) ‘Real work hours’, the employer’s command and supervision skills as well as the worker’s workplace relevance and obligation are strong; (2) ‘Recognized work hours’, including waiting time of Article 50 Clause 3 of the law, although the workers’ workplace relevance and obligation toward work still exist, the employers’ command and supervision levels are somewhat lower; (3) ‘Quasi work hours’, wherein employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low but workers’ time sovereignty is significantly impacted owing to their strong sense of work relevance and obligation; and (4) ‘Nonwork hours’ wherein the workers’ relevance and sense of obligation as well as the employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low (but never nonexistent). In addition, the concept of comparison of work hours does not entail rest time (as in precedents and common views) but private time such as days off, holidays, and vacations excluded from the prescribed working days.BR work hours are the most significant core of working conditions. The work-hours law that restricts and regulates this has a strong public-law character and must be devoted to the protection of workers. However, it is necessary to ensure the time sovereignty of workers with judicial power and flexibility, and it is necessary to keep pace with the times. To enhance the rationality of work hours law, it is also important to consider the legislative theory. However, there is also a reason to secure proper timing through analysis of the interpretation of the current legal system. These efforts are expected to provide a stronger foundation for the legislative theory of the work hours law in the future.