지침 등을 통한 노동관계 개입에 관한 검토 = A Review of the Government Intervention in Labor Relations through Guidelines

국문 초록 (Abstract)

국민의 권리와 의무에 관한 모든 사항을 법률로 정할 수는 없기에 행정입법이 널리 활용되고 있다. 행정입법은 상위 법령의 위임을 받아서 제정되기도 하지만, 행정청 내부의 사무처리를 위해서 특별히 위임을 받지 않고 행정규칙의 범주에서 제정되어 활용되기도 한다. 그런데 문제는 행정규칙의 형태로 혹은 행정해석의 형태로 각종 지침 등이 법적 근거, 법적 성격, 제정권한 등이 불분명한 상태에서 임의로 제정되어 행정처분을 매개로 하지 않고 비공식적 행정작용의 형태로 국민의 권리와 의무에 영향을 미치고 있다는 점이다. 이는 특히 노동관계에서도 마찬가지로 발생하고있다. 고용노동부는 특별한 통제 없이 내부적으로 행정규칙의 형태로 다수의 지침 등을 제정하여 기업현장에 배포하고 있는데, 때로는 행정해석의 방식으로 때로는 행정지도의 방식으로 노동관계에 개입하여 노사 당사자에게 영향을 미치고 있다. 이때 이러한 지침 등은 그 법적 성격이 행정규칙인지 아닌지도 불분명한 상태에서 내부적으로 제정되어 외부로 공개되는데, 때로는 법령이나 판례와는 다른 내용을 지니고 있기도 하고 때로는 고용노동부의 권한 범위를 넘는 것으로 보이는 내용도 발견되는데, 특히 사업주가 고용노동부의 이러한 지침 등에 따라서 인사관리 기타 노사관계에 대응하고 있어서 노동관계에 왜곡이 발생하거나 불필요한 노동분쟁을 발생시키기도 해서 문제가 되고 있다. 특히 최근의 소위 공정인사지침, 취업규칙해석지침 등은 많은 논란을 제기하였다. 행정기관이라고 해서 법령에 대한 해석의 권한이 없는 것은 아니지만 지침 등으로 어느 정도의 범위에서 견해 표명을 할 수 있을 것인가 그밖에 문제점이 발견된 지침 등에 대한 대응 방법은 무엇인가를 고민하지 않을 수 없기에 본 논문에서는 지침 등을 통한 노동관계 개입과 관련하여 지침 등의 문제점과 한계 그밖에 통제방안에 대해 검토하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Today, administration is becoming more and more complex, specialized and technologized, therefore administrative rulemaking cannot be denied. Administrative rulemaking can cope with the rapid changes in administrative phenomena in modern countries. Administrative ministries have the authority to enact ministerial ordinances. In addition to that, ministries may enact and revise internal regulations necessary for the enforcement of jurisdictional Acts and its interpretation standards of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. This is the same for the Ministry of Employment and Labor (hereinafter referred to as MOEL).
MOEL, as one of the central administrative ministries, enacts the enforcement regulations, namely, ministerial ordinances of each Act under the delegation of the Acts related to labor law. In addition, MOEL enacts and implements a number of regulations under various names such as ‘guidelines, examples, instructions, directives, rules, bulletins, manuals and the like’ (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘guidelines’) for establishing criteria for internal affairs treatments, administrative supervisions, and administrative guidance. There are even hundreds of guidelines that are currently being implemented in the area of labor-management. Among the guidelines, there are administrative rules for the enforcement of Acts and subordinate statutes, or the treatments of
internal affairs, but there are also many whose legal basis and legal character are not clear. Generally, guidelines belong to administrative rules, but there are also guidelines those are not administrative rules. For example, the ｢Guidelines for the Calculation of Normal Wages｣, ｢Guidelines for the Interpretation and Operation of Work Rules｣, and the ｢Manual of Affairs for Collective Labor Relations｣ were enacted without specific legal grounds and distributed to the labor-management parties in the name of administrative guidance. These guidelines have an
influence on labor-management parties, and leads to an impact on labor relations. This is especially true because employers rely on the guidelines by applying them to workers to operate their businesses. These are enacted just by inside of MOEL, but not administrative rules. It is because these guidelines are neither for the treatments of internal affairs, nor for the enforcement of Acts and subordinate statutes.
If the Acts and subordinate statutes don’t grant any authority to the Minister of Employment and Labor or public officials, then there will be no affairs to be carried out by them. Even in this case, guidelines are also created. These guidelines do not basically impose a certain
duty to do or not to do something on a particular person, but they may induce him/her to act in accordance with the expectation of the administrative agencies by influencing the formation of his/her intention. This type of administration function belongs to an informal administration
action. This kind of informal administration action is enforced to labor-management parties especially in the name of administrative guidance. In other words, MOEL distributes these guidelines to the workplace and instructs labor-management parties to follow them. Besides that,
MOEL provides administrative guidance to labor-management parties for implementation of them. The guidelines are not administrative disposition, but just informal administrative action. They have neither legal grounds, nor legal binding force. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible for employers to ignore them and run a business. It is because MOEL has a superior power relationship with employers, in other words, in effect compulsory. By the way, if its contents are different from Acts or Precedents, labor relations can be distorted. In addition, it is very difficult to file lawsuits against the guidelines themselves, because there exists just informal administrative action without administrative disposition, consequently, there is almost no possibility to take remedies through administrative appeals or litigations. If the government uses the guidelines with an intention to make labor relations flow to a certain direction, labor relations distortion can be more facilitated. Nevertheless, why the guidelines are still enacted and implemented? After the collapse of the industrial structure during the Japanese Colonial Period and the Korean War, South Korea’s
(hereafter, Korea) industrialization was pursued for economic development under the dictatorship regime from the 1960s to the 1980s. In this process, labor relations were not autonomously
established, but formed by government’s orientation. The oppression of labor-management autonomy was carried out in a way of suppressing the labor movement under the name of national reconstruction and economic development. Anyway, Korea's present economy grew amazingly through development dictatorship. Nevertheless, there seems to be an intention of the government to intervene in labor relations and to form the order of labor relations in a certain direction. However, the way to achieve such a goal has been refined in a way through administrative rulemaking such as guidelines. It is not appropriate for the government to actively engage in labor relations, which are basically civil relations. It seems that the role of the government has to be such as to enforce labor inspection for employers who do not comply with basic labor standards, to create jobs, to make an environment for labor-management autonomy, and to activate industries. It would be interesting to examine the legal issues on the government intervention in
labor relations through guidelines in the perspective of what is the role of the state.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 - 행정입법과 비공식적 행정작용
• Ⅱ. 지침 등에 의한 행정작용과 그 문제점
• Ⅲ. 지침 등을 통한 노동관계 개입 사례와 비판적 검토
• Ⅳ. 지침 등이 갖춰야할 범위와 한계
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제8판" 박영사 2013
• 2 권오성, "행정지침에 의한 근로조건 규율의 문제점, 915 노사정 대타협과 법적 쟁점"
• 3 박균성, "행정법강의" 박영사 2012
• 4 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ" 박영사 2016
• 5 박종희, "통상해고 지침을 둘러싼 논쟁에 대한 소고: 오해와 오류를 중심으로" 법학연구원 (80) : 371-402, 2016
• 6 고용노동부, "취업규칙 해석 및 운영지침"
• 7 고용노동부, "집단적 노사관계 업무매뉴얼"
• 8 노호창, "자원봉사자에 관한 법적 쟁점의 연구" 한국노동법학회 (58) : 25-58, 2016
• 9 김기덕, "일반해고 요건 관련 고용노동부의 행정지침의 문제점, 개정 국회법과 고용노동부의 행정지침"
• 10 노사관계법제과, "위법･불합리한 단체협약 시정지도 추진"
• 11 김선수, "노동법의 미래담론" 사단법인 노동법연구소해밀 2016
• 12 권두섭, "노동법의 미래담론" 사단법인 노동법연구소 해밀 2016
• 13 노호창, "노동법의 미래담론" 사단법인 노동법연구소 해밀 2016
• 14 김유성, "노동법Ⅱ" 법문사 1999
• 15 임종률, "노동법" 박영사 2017
• 16 노호창, "근로자 해고를 위해 사용자가 원용한 ｢공정인사지침｣이 법원에서는 사용자 의도와는 반대로 작용한 사례" 한국노동법학회 (61) : 2017
• 17 김종두, "국회의 행정입법통제제도" 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 12 : 43-104, 2004
• 18 노호창, "국민기초생활보장사업안내에서 정하는 추정소득 부과처분의 적법성에 대한 검토" 한국노동법학회 (50) : 2014
• 19 고용노동부, "공정인사지침"
• 20 李 鋌, "公正人事指針の意義と機能" (255) : 2016
• 21 "http://www.moel.go.kr/view.jsp?cate=3&sec=1&bbs_cd=116&gr_dept_cd=&dept_list=&dept_cd=&div_cd=&mode=list&smenu=4&dept=&edate=&sdate=&keyField=0&keyWord=&page=1"