노조전임자의 노동조합활동 중의 재해에 대한 업무상 재해 인정 여부

For the first time on February 22, 1995, the Supreme Court admitted accidents during full-time union officers’ labor union activities as occupational accidents, and since then, it has been maintaining the position. Since the decision, there have been discussions on whether full-time union officers’ labor union activities are works and whether accidents during the activities are occupational accidents. Article 24-1 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates that full-time union officers are acknowledged if their positions are provided in the collective bargaining agreement or the employer agrees on them, and this ensures that the acknowledgement of full-time union officers is not forced on the employer but is by agreement between the employer and the labor union. Accordingly, it looks meaningless to dispute over the legal ground for full-time union officers. Accidents during full-time union officers’ labor union activities raise the questions of whether the union activities are works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and whether the accidents can be regarded as occupational accidents. A prerequisite for answering these questions is what ‘work’ is under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not define the concept of work. Thus, the concept is derived from analyzing the contents of Article 3-3 of the enforcement regulations of the law. According to the concept, the specific and clear scope of work under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be defined by regarding works as jobs done by employees in the state under the employer’s control and management, namely, employees’ actions under the constraints of time and place in order to carry out their duties under the employment contract between the employees and the employer and the employer’s instructions. Given this concept of work, full-time union officers’ union activities are not works under the employment contract with the employer or under the constraints of time and place for carrying out the employer’s instructions. Full-time union officers do union activities freely out of the employer’s control and management. Therefore, such activities cannot be regarded as works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. What is more, accidents happening during full-time union officers’ union activities cannot be occupational accidents as provided by Article 5-1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Therefore, it is unjust that, nevertheless, the Supreme Court admitted full-time union officers’ union activities as works under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and accidents during union activities as occupational accidents for the reason that full-time union officers’ works are closely related to the employer’s works. In particular, it is an unacceptable decision that the Supreme Court denied the occupational nature of activities related to labor organizations, which are in the relation of mutual aid or association, and judged that accidents during such activities are not occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision should be reversed. In the context of legislation, it is not desirable either to leave full-time union officers to be exposed utterly to the risk of accidents. Thus, we may consider a method of protecting them from the risk of accidents to some degree by adding a separate provision to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, under which the labor union pays the insurance premium for the compensation of full-time union officers.