2025년 주요 노동판례의 회고

초록

In 2025, while the development of new case law responding to changes in the labor market was notable, it can also be observed that a significant number of disputes continued to arise from the interpretive ambiguities inherent in the wording of labor legislation. This demonstrates that legal conflicts, which could have been avoided had sufficient normative clarity been secured at the legislative stage, are being repeatedly reproduced in the workplace. In particular, disputes concerning the wage nature of performance-based bonuses and the scope of ordinary wage calculations represent typical examples in which the lack of clarity in statutory interpretation gives rise to structural and recurring conflicts. Under these circumstances, it is no longer tenable to rely solely on judicial precedents for the interpretation of core labor law concepts, and such reliance has also reached its limits in terms of ensuring normative predictability. Although the fundamental solution clearly lies in legislative clarification, discussions on amending the relevant laws remain limited due to conflicts of interest among stakeholders. Meanwhile, the case law of 2025 also reconfirms areas in which proactive legislative intervention in labor law is required. First, the issue of fairness in recruitment must be emphasized. In today’s labor market, recruitment can no longer be understood merely within the framework of the principle of freedom of contract; rather, it must satisfy the requirement of social legitimacy from the perspective of the fair distribution of employment opportunities. In this regard, the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing recruitment fraud as a material mistake on the part of the employer, thereby allowing the rescission of the employment contract, carries significant implications. Second, the issue of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions has gained increasing importance. Disciplinary measures, particularly those related to workplace harassment, have a substantial impact on employees’ working conditions, thereby necessitating stronger guarantees of procedural legitimacy. In particular, given that many workplaces ensure the participation of labor unions in disciplinary procedures, the Supreme Court’s position that guaranteeing such participation is consistent with the duty of fair representation of the bargaining representative union is noteworthy. This decision is significant in that it expands the scope of the duty of fair representation to encompass individual employees’ disciplinary procedures. Ultimately, the need for prompt legislative action to establish clear and detailed rules regarding the grounds and procedures for disciplinary actions can no longer be deferred.

키워드