변경된 취업규칙상 소정근로시간 단축 조항이 탈법행위로 무효인지 여부-대법원 2019. 4. 18. 선고 2016다2451 전원합의체 판결-

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision on April 19, 2018 found that the employment rule to pay the minimum wage by reducing the number of working hours from the actual working hours was invalid. The decision can be said to be justified logically in light of the legislative intent of Article 6 of the Minimum Wage Act, and the Constitutional Court's decision. The minimum wage system is aimed at ensuring economic stability through the improvement of workers' working conditions, and the regulation of the minimum wage law is a law that embodies the minimum wage system, which is stipulated by the Constitutional Law as the nation's duty. Therefore, it is reasonable in principle to regard the agreement to shorten the working hours to avoid it as invalid as an act of law. The problem is that an agreement to change the employment rules should be treated as a de-lawful act, even if the quality of wages remains at existing levels or improves through changes in employment rules. The special clause under the Minimum Wage Act is a regulation on the quality of wages, which specifically regulates the way wages are paid for taxi drivers, and it is necessary to listen to dissent that it is not intended to regulate the amount of wages. Provided that the total income of taxi workers is constant, the increase in fixed wages leads to a reduction in excess transport income, and the two are in a relationship that is usually inversely proportional to each other, so there is a practical limit to separate fixed wages and excess transport receipts and make a legal assessment separately. In the midst of uncertainties in the external economy and the unstable employment structure caused by the sharp increase in the minimum wage, rigid interpretation that is faithful only to lawmaking and legal statements that do not take into account the characteristics of the industry can produce new expedients for the survival of companies or deepen conflicts in labor-management relations. If an agreed employment rule that does not disadvantage workers is uniformly nullified in situations where the right to arbitrary changes to workers' working conditions is restricted, it could serve as a significant limitation in guaranteeing corporate autonomy, democracy and accountability. Violations to worsen working conditions should be interpreted strictly. However, even if working conditions violate the purpose of the Minimum Wage Act, I think it is reasonable to recognize the validity of employment rules if they have been changed by agreement between employer and taxi workers, and if they have maintained or improved the existing working conditions. It is also necessary to present clearer criteria through legislation.