지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제42호
- 발행연도
- 2024.7
- 수록면
- 63 - 93 (31page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2024.07.42.63
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This year marks the 5th anniversary of the implementation of the revised Labor Standards Act, which stipulates a system to prohibit workplace bullying. This regulation raises awareness of the rampant abuse and bullying in our society and legislates the social demand to create a healthy work culture. Along with the expectation that this law will lead to the eradication of harassment, there are also concerns about whether the system will operate effectively as the regulation defines the concept too broadly, making the criteria for judging harassment ambiguous, and the liability for violations of employers" obligations is minimal. It was raised consistently.
The ambiguity of the concept of workplace bullying is one of the reasons why the reliability of workplace bullying judgments in the field cannot be increased. A situation is occurring where some workers are taking advantage of the gap and are abusing the system without realizing its purpose.
The act of reporting another worker claiming that bullying in the workplace exists when it does not exist for the purpose of gaining personnel or financial benefits can be called a false report. In principle, our Labor Standards Act is designed as a system to resolve cases through self-discipline within the workplace, and therefore does not have explicit provisions to sanction such false reporters.
If there are direct sanctions against false reporters in law, it is undesirable because it becomes difficult for true victims of harassment to decide to report, and employers may abuse this to impose disadvantageous measures on victims.
I believe that a more effective and reasonable method would be to supplement the system by mandating expert consultation and investigation so that employers can objectively investigate reported cases of workplace harassment and properly reveal the facts to make fair judgments. Entering the 5th year of implementation, various opinions are being gathered about the effectiveness of the system and its points of improvement. As such, thorough institutional supplementation is needed to prevent bullying in the workplace and to follow-up personnel measures during and after the investigation.
The ambiguity of the concept of workplace bullying is one of the reasons why the reliability of workplace bullying judgments in the field cannot be increased. A situation is occurring where some workers are taking advantage of the gap and are abusing the system without realizing its purpose.
The act of reporting another worker claiming that bullying in the workplace exists when it does not exist for the purpose of gaining personnel or financial benefits can be called a false report. In principle, our Labor Standards Act is designed as a system to resolve cases through self-discipline within the workplace, and therefore does not have explicit provisions to sanction such false reporters.
If there are direct sanctions against false reporters in law, it is undesirable because it becomes difficult for true victims of harassment to decide to report, and employers may abuse this to impose disadvantageous measures on victims.
I believe that a more effective and reasonable method would be to supplement the system by mandating expert consultation and investigation so that employers can objectively investigate reported cases of workplace harassment and properly reveal the facts to make fair judgments. Entering the 5th year of implementation, various opinions are being gathered about the effectiveness of the system and its points of improvement. As such, thorough institutional supplementation is needed to prevent bullying in the workplace and to follow-up personnel measures during and after the investigation.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소지
Ⅱ. 직장 내 괴롭힘 신고에 관한 쟁점
Ⅲ. 직장 내 괴롭힘 허위신고의 당사자에 대한 조치
Ⅳ. 직장 내 괴롭힘 신고사건 조사과정에서의 객관성 확보
Ⅴ. 나오며
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
직장 내 괴롭힘의 법적 개념과 성립요건: 직장 내 성희롱과의 비교를 중심으로
젠더법학
2019 .07
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 판단기준에 관한 연구
노동법학
2024 .12
-
직장내 괴롭힘에 대한 근로자 보호방안 — 직장내 괴롭힘법의 법적 쟁점과 개선방안 —
사회법연구
2019 .01
-
사회복지종사자 직장 내 괴롭힘 경험요인과 우울에 미치는 영향
한국지역사회복지학
2021 .02
-
직장 내 괴롭힘의 법적 개념과 요건
노동법학
2019 .03
-
직장괴롭힘과 경영 · 인사관리의 한계 : 노동 인격에 대한 존중
산업관계연구
2018 .06
-
직장내 괴롭힘의 ILO 협약과 권고에 관한 연구
노동법논총
2019 .12
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 금지에 관한 논의와 쟁점
법학연구
2024 .03
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 대응·조치 체계 구축과 조직 문화의 개선 - 2021.10.14. 시행 개정법을 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2021 .11
-
직장 내 괴롭힘금지법의 현황과 과제 -예방교육을 중심으로-
법과인권교육연구
2020 .01
-
인격권 보호를 위한 직장 내 괴롭힘 예방교육의 과제
노동법포럼
2024 .07
-
사회복지조직 직장 내 괴롭힘에 영향을 미치는 요인
보건과 복지
2023 .03
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 금지 제도와 실효적 구제 - 구제의 완전성과 다양성을 중심으로 -
홍익법학
2022 .12
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 자율적 대응체계와 적용범위의 확장
사회법연구
2023 .04
-
의미연결망 분석을 활용한 직장 내 괴롭힘 이슈 탐색
인문사회 21
2022 .10
-
직장 내 괴롭힘 금지제도의 실태와 발전 과제 — 시행 3주년 실태조사 결과를 소재로 하여 —
사회법연구
2023 .04
-
근로기준법상 직장 내 괴롭힘 금지 규정 시행1년에 대한 평가와 개선방안
고려법학
2020 .01
-
การคุกคามในที่ทำงาน: ศึกษาเปรียบเทียบกฎหมายแรงงานเกาหลีและไทย
한국태국학회논총
2022 .02
-
근로환경 특성이 직장 내 괴롭힘에 미치는 영향
분쟁해결연구
2017 .08
-
직장 내 괴롭힘에 대한 사용자의 조사 의무와 입증책임
법학연구
2023 .05
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-090287580