[작성자:] Hyunjin Bae

Is electronic *labor contract legally effective in Korea? (Labor Standards Policy Division-5455, Sep

*Korean Labor Standards Act defines as ‘labor contract.’: more known as ’employment contract’
 
This question seems a little out of date considering that it is 21st century and that we are living in a hi-tech world- we might not need any paper document on our desk anymore in the near future, and yes, even now there are some companies with non-paper management system. But only recently a clear guideline has been provided by the Ministry of Employment and Labor on this issue (Labor Standards Policy Division-5455, Sep. 1, 2016). This guideline gives a clear answer to particular situations that happen in the field, such as:
 
– What kind of electronic documents will be recognized as legallabor contract?
–Exactly whenwill these electronic documents become effective?
– How should these electronic documents be deliveredto employees?
 This issue is also relevant to electronic commerce which is partially mandated in the Framework Act On Electronic Documents and Transactions; the guideline fully follows the provision included in the Act.
 
The summary of the guideline is as following.
 
A. Employers can write labor contracts with employees in electronic form.
 
Electronic labor contract (e-labor contract) can be made via electronic document generation program such as Office, Web editor, PDF, Hangul, etc. using PC, smartphone, or any other electronic devices created to support electronic document processing.

The system must have devices, etc. to guarantee that both employers and employees can write (make), verify, and modify the labor contract, and to let the final signed contract be sent automatically to both parties.
To prevent any kind of legal dispute between employers and employees considering labor conditions, an e-labor contract should clearly include both parties’ signature before it is electronically transformed, or it should be signed electronically, using digital signature programs.
 
It is recommended that e-labor contract is kept/saved as read-only version (read-only PDF, Hangul, image file format such as JPG, TIF, etc.) after both parties have finally signed, to avoid any kind of invalid modification by any side. If supported by an information processing system, it is necessary that the system has a certain device helping in a way when one party modifies any part of the contract after signing the final version, the other party can be informed immediately and able to identify the part amended (i.e., hash value MD5, DRM, or watermark, etc.).
B. Employers must deliver the e-labor contract to employees under**Article 17 (2)of the Labor Standards Act to let employees know well of their own labor conditions.
 
**provision:
Article 17 (Clear Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment):

(1) An employer shall state the following matters clearly. The same shall also apply to any alteration of the following matters after entering into a labor contract. <Amended by Act No. 10319, May 25, 2010>

1. Wages; 
2. Contractual work hours; 
3. Holidays under Article 55; 
4. Annual paid leaves under Article 60; 
5. Other terms and conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) An employer shall deliver the written statement specifying constituent items, calculation methods and payment methods of wages with respect to the wages under paragraph (1) 1 and the matters prescribed in subparagraphs 2 through 4 to workers: Provided, That where the matters under the main sentence is modified due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as changes, etc. of collective agreements or rules of employment, such matters shall be delivered to the relevant workers at their request. <Newly Inserted by Act No. 10319, May 25, 2010> 
There are several accepted methods of delivering:
  
To print out as a paper document and deliver in person.
To send the e-labor contract automatically through information processing system designated by employees, intranet, a software or attached storage space, mail, or email service provided by portal websites, etc.
 
It will be recognized legally effective, when employers delivered as following:
 
1. When there is a certain information processing system designated by employees

1-1. Using information processing system designated by employees
     When the employer ‘enters’ an e-labor contract into the system. 
1-2. Using other information processing system which is not designated by employees
     If employees checked the system and printed out their labor contract, even though it is not a ‘designated’ system it will be recognized legally effective.
2.When there is noinformation processing system designated byemployees

   It will be recognized legally effective if the employer ‘enters’ an e-labor contract into a system ‘managed by’ employees, though it is not a designated system. However, if the employees do not agree to being delivered ‘electronically’, the employer must deliver as printed paper contracts in person.
 
3. When delivering electronically under condition of ‘return receipt’

   It will be recognized legally effective if the employer received a return receipt sent from the employee(s).
 
C. Employers must preserve all e-labor contracts written between their employees and themselves, not only during the execution of the contract but for three years after the employment is terminated, under ***Article 42 of the Labor Standards Act.
 
***provision:
 Article 42 (Preservation of Documents in Relation to Contract)

An employer shall, for three years, preserve a register of workers and other important documents related to labor contracts as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

3개월 단기 근로계약(인턴계약)

근래 3개월 기간 근로계약을 검토하는 경우가 많이 있는데, 이는 근로계약 상으로 이른바 ‘수습기간’을 두더라도 법률상 ‘해고(근로자의 사직서 제출 없이 사용자가 일방적으로 근로계약 종료 통보)’를 할 경우에는 (비록 수습기간이 아닌 일반 근로자의 해고에 비하여 그 정당한 이유 존부에 대하여 넓게 해석할지라도) 해고의 정당성을 근로자가 다툴 수 있다보니,

3개월의 단기 근로계약을 체결함으로써 계속고용이 어려울 것으로 판단되는 경우에 근로계약 기간만료를 통해 분쟁 소지 자체를 없애고자 하는 것과 더불어, 현 정부가 정규직 전환 정책을 펼치고 있으므로 정규직 전환의 부담을 줄이고자 하는 목적으로도 활용되고 있습니다.

오늘 검토해보고자 하는 경우는 3개월의 인턴계약의 명칭으로 근로계약을 체결한 경우, 3개월 만료 전 사용자가 근로관게 종료를 일방적으로 통보한 경우에 이를 근로기준법 제35조 해고예고의 적용제외로서의 수습근로자(즉, 시행령에 따라 수습기간 3개월 이내의 근로자)로 볼 수 있는지 여부입니다.

‘인턴’이라는 말이 민간 영역 및 심지어 공적영역에서도 널리 활용되고 있지만(예: 청년인턴제) 법률상으로 과도적 근로관계에 있는 자는 본채용을 위한 적격성을 판단하기 위한 ‘시용’과 이미 본채용한 근로자에 대하여 일정기간 교육을 시행하는 의미로서의 ‘수습’으로 나뉘어집니다. 그러나 근로기준법은 해고의 적용제외에 있어서 ‘수습’근로자라고만 정의하여 ‘시용’이라는 말은 법에 등장하지 않으며, 따라서 어떤 경우에든 과도적 근로관계라는 것이 명확하게 정하여진 경우에는 근로기준법 제35조를 적용할 수 있을 것이지만, 위에서 말씀드린 단 3개월의 단기기간으로 계약을 체결한 경우에까지 ‘수습’, 즉 법률상 ‘시용’ 계약으로 볼 수 있을 것인지가 문제된다고 할 수 있습니다(만약 법률상 본채용된 자에 대한 교육기간 부여의 의미로서의 수습기간이라고 본다면 구두로나마 정규직 채용이 결정된 바가 있었는지에 대해서부터 다투어져야 할 것이므로, 근로자가 달리 주장하지 않는 한은 법률상 ‘시용’ 계약으로 봐야 할 것입니다).

최근 고등법원 판례가 이에 대하여 “그 기간의 만료 후 정규직 계약체결여부를 결정하는 절차를 진행한다는 취지가 기재되어 있지 않은 근로계약은 기간제 근로계약에 해당“함을 판시하여 이를 소개합니다.

서울고등법원 2016.9.28., 2015누54706
1) 근로계약서에 근로계약기간이 명시되어 있을 뿐 그 기간이 시용 기간이라서나 이 기간 만료 후 본 계약 또는 정규직 계약 체결 여부를 결정하는 절차를 진행한다는 취지가 전혀 기재되어 있지 않고, 2) 회사의 취업규칙, 단체협약에서도 인턴은 계약 기간이 끝날 때 자동으로 근로계약이 종료한다고 하면서 ‘인턴에 대해 근로 성적 등을 심사하여 정규직으로 채용할 수 있다’고 하여 정규직 계약 체결 여부에 관한 결정을 임의적인 절차로 규정하고 있으며, 3) 이 사건 근로자를 채용한 장년 인턴제 사업의 지침에서도 ‘인턴 실시 기업은 인턴 참여자가 직무 능력 개발 및 직장 적응을 통해 정규직 근로자로 채용될 수 있도록 노력하여야 한다’고 하여 정규직 계약 체결 여부에 관한 결정을 임의적인 절차로 규정하고 있는 등의 사정이 있다면, 이 사건 근로계약은 인턴 기간을 계약 기간으로 정한 기간제 근로계약이다.

따라서 ‘시용’ 계약에는 근로자 본인과의 합의를 요한다는 법리에 따라, 그 절차를 결한 3개월 단기 근로계약은 ‘기간제 근로계약’으로 해석되며 그 기간 도중에 이루어진 해고 역시 기간제 근로계약기간 중의 해고의 법리로 접근되어야 하는 것입니다. 근로계약서 상에 명시적으로 ‘수습기간 적용’을 두고 있지 아니하며 그 기간 중의 해고 조치가 아닌 경우에는 근로기준법 제35조를 적용할 수 없습니다.

Unpaid job training time?

Unpaid job training time?

Many overdue payment petitions are submitted to regional employment and labor offices in Korea, related to job training time. Especially in small and medium business, when hiring new employees employers tend to have some period of probationary/trial (Korean Labor Standard Act does not clearly restrict the length of such period, however 3 to 6 months is suggested as reasonable length of time) to give careful considerations before they ‘permantly’ hire someone.

Some employers consider that a training period before these probationary/trial employees are actually allocated to their work can be ‘unpaid’, since the employees do not ‘work’ during the training period that may last from at least a day to a month if more, and in many cases employers even spend quite amount budget on these training programs for inviting lecturers, buying materials, etc.

The conclusion is ‘Employers need to pay salary to their employees at their regular rate for training period’, if:

– the purpose of training is employees’ ‘job’ at the employer’s company

– the training is done during the regular working hours

– attenance is not voluntary (considered mandatory)

Even if the employer argues that the employees knew and agreed that they will be unpaid during such period, it is not legally effective. All articles related to ‘wage’ in the Labor Standard Act (LSA) are compulsory provisions.

Related administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor:

‘Mandatory training time during working hours or outside the hours, related to employees’ job such as operation safety or operation efficiency, must be included as paid working hours.’ (Labor Standard Team 01254-14835, 1988.9.29)

‘Even if an employee signed an agreement accepting that (s)he will not be paid for job training time, employer must pay the employee if such time is legally recognized as working hours’ (Labor Improvement Policy Team-4354, 2012.8.28)