노동위원회 신뢰제고와 활성화를 위한 제언

Since the establishment of the Labor Relations Commission, its function has been expanded due to the increase in labor disputes caused by the complicated relations between labor and capital and labor market. Thus, expectations for the Labor Relations Commission as a dispute resolution organization for quick and fair resolution of labor disputes are growing and there are more and more requirements but both labor and management do not recognize the Labor Relations Commission as an trustworthy or fair organization with expertise in resolving labor disputes in terms of conciliation and adjudication at a satisfactory level. The reliability problem for the Labor Relations Commission results in the institutional problem and problem of expertise of chairperson, members of standing committee, Commissioner and commissioners and investigators who are members of the Labor Relations Commission and the fixedness of conciliation and adjudication. Under the current system where the Labor Relations Commission is an administrative committee belonging to the Ministry of Employment and Labor and thus, the Ministry of Employment and Labor has personnel matters and budgeting rights, the Labor Relations Commission is considered not to be free from the administration, causing distrust. To solve this problem, the Labor Relations Commission should be a commission directly responsible to the President or if maintaining the current system, independence of the Labor Relations Commission should be ensured in the personnel matters and budgeting. A person with more than 5 years of experience in the relations between labor and capital should be appointed as the chairperson of the local Labor Relations Commission and those with law career or majors of labor law should be appointed as members of member of a standing committee to enhance professionalism and the number should be increased significantly and ambiguity of each role should be resolved. Also, qualifications should be strengthened to ensure professionalism in appointment of Labor Relations Commission members and Expertise in Labor Relations Act and experience in the workplace should be emphasized for adjudication members and conciliation members, respectively and the fairness of appointment procedures should be ensured. An investigator rotationally works in the Ministry of Employment and Labor and Labor Relations Commission according to the rotation transfer of civil servants and Ministry of Employment and Labor job rotation should be abolished or limited to ensure the continuity of responsible job in order to enhance the expertise of investigators. In addition, neutrality should be ensured in the selection of members in the event processing process and configuration of the adjudication commission and conciliation commission and fairness should be sought in adjudication procedures and conciliation procedures. Furthermore, it is important to deal with labor disputes quickly in the Labor Relations Commission and to do this, a smooth resolution by reconciliation is desirable in terms of the nature of the relations between labor and capital. Reconciliation recommendation meeting and reconciliation system before adjudication test-operated in Chungbuk Labor Relations Commission satisfy this condition. We think that this needs to be institutionalized. To activate the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to expand its function in order to respond to the demands of resolving labor disputes quickly and fairly. One of measures meeting these requirements is to allow the Labor Relations Commission to handle overdue wage remedy cases. The current overdue wage remedy system ensures remedy according to civil proceedings and remedy procedures through criminal punishment but if a fired worker wants to receive an overdue wage while receiving unfair dismissal remedy, the fired worker can apply for unfair dismissal remedy to the Labor Relations Commission but overdue wage is the work of the Labor Relations Commission and therefore, the worker cannot but receive remedy after reporting overdue wage to the local labor office not the Labor Relations Commission and this dual structure is a burden on workers who can not afford time and money. In addition, since the current system is dualized as the wage claim guarantee system to solve overdue wage of bankruptcy establishments and non-bankruptcy establishment overdue wage solution solving in accordance with the Labor Standard Act and Civil Relation Act, if an overdue wage worker claims substitute payment, the Wage Claim Guarantee Fund provides an overdue wage of bankruptcy workplace instead but overdue wage workers of non-bankrupt workplace are not protected properly even if they try to receive overdue wage according to the labor supervisor and civil procedures. If the Labor Relations Commission deals with the remedy case of overdue wage of the non-bankrupt workplace, it will be reasonable to order the workplace to pay overdue wage through the overdue wage confirmation the labor supervisor and self-investigation and adjudication and impose enforcement fine if not paying although it can pay and help overdue wage workers to receive substitute payment by applying for commencement of rehabilitation process if the workplace has no money to pay.