6개월 상한 탄력시간제의 해석상 쟁점

Abstract

This paper aims to examine and review four interpreting issues concerning with ‘flexible working-hour system within six months and no less than 3 months’(hereafter ‘6 months flexible hour system’) under amended LSA on 05. Jan, 2021. An introduction of the 6 months flexible hour system, Article 51-2 of the LSA, is based on the tripartite agreement which made among representatives of workers, employers, and government on 19. Feb, 2019. Four questions concerning with ‘6 months flexible hour system and my interpreting conclusions are followings; First, who are eligible employees of voting for representative of employees especially when the 6 months flexible hour system is expected to be carried out within limited work-unit, not over all workplace? In this case, I think that the only employees within the unit are eligible of voting for representative of employees. Second, could an individual employee reject to work for a reason of his/her disagreement under the 6 months flexible hour arrangement? I support that a duty to work under the 6 months flexible hour arrangement comes into effect only from a written agreement between the representative of employees and the employe and an individual employee do not have a right to reject the written agreement. Third, is there a limit of daily working hours by the introduction of a daily rest of 11 hours? My answer is ‘yes’. Because the first purpose of a daily rest is to prohibit working over a certain limit within consecutive 24 hours. Lastly, should we make the 6 months flexible hour system void in general in case of unlawful written agreement or employer's violation of written agreement? I prefer that an employee could have the right of choice whether to work under the 6 months flexible hour system or under fixed working-hour system.