메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
심재진 (대구대학교)
저널정보
한국비교노동법학회 노동법논총 勞動法論叢 第25輯
발행연도
2012.8
수록면
45 - 78 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The reason why harassment cases have all revolved around sex or race is because of the fact that until the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 there was no legislation in force specifically prohibiting harassment as such in the UK. However since 1975/76 there has been specific legislation in force prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination and cases of sexual or racial harassment have been dealt with by the courts on the basis that sexual or racial harassment is in fact sexual or racial discrimination. Therefore in such cases workers had to demonstrate that they had bee not only harassed but the reason they were so wass because of sex or race. The grounds because of which harassment have been prohibited extended to cover disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age. Moreover, the Equality Act 2010 provides that harassment at work has to be related to such grounds in order to constitute harassment under the Act. This amendment is expected to lessen the burden of proving the causation between harassment and those grounds. Time limits for bringing cases before an Employment Tribunal are tight and claims must be brought within 3 months of the date of the last incident complained of.
Persons who have been harassed at work because of grounds other than those under the Equality Act are not completely helpless from a legal point of view.If someone is harassed at their place of work they could decide to sue their employer for damages using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than by going to an Employment Tribunal. In some circumstances this route could be simpler particularly if there could be technical arguments as to whether they were an employee or a self employed contractor. Those employment law technicalities would not be relevant in any legal claim under the act. All that would be relevant is the fact that the harassment occurred, the damage it caused and whether the employer was vicariously liable for permitting, or not preventing the Harassment. The Law relating to Vicarious Liability was clarified and extended by the House of Lords in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd and following this in the case of Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust the House of Lords held that an employer would be vicariously liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for damages arising from Harassment of an employee by other employees. The Time Limit for bringing a claim for damages under section 3 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. is 6 years which is far longer than the 3 month time time limit for bringing claims for Racial or Sexual Discrimination.
Moreover, if workers have been subjected to such a degree of harassment that they have to leave their employment then they can claim compensation from an Employment Tribunal on the grounds that they have been the victim of ‘constructive dismissal’.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 직장 내 괴롭힘에 대한 한국법의 규율
Ⅲ. 영국보통법상의 규제
Ⅳ. 괴롭힘금지법상의 규제
Ⅴ. 평등법상의 규제
Ⅵ. 기타
Ⅶ. 맺으며
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (34)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)

  • 대법원 1998. 2. 10. 선고 95다39533 판결

    [1] 성적 표현행위의 위법성 여부는, 쌍방 당사자의 연령이나 관계, 행위가 행해진 장소 및 상황, 성적 동기나 의도의 유무, 행위에 대한 상대방의 명시적 또는 추정적인 반응의 내용, 행위의 내용 및 정도, 행위가 일회적 또는 단기간의 것인지 아니면 계속적인 것인지 여부 등의 구체적 사정을 종합하여, 그것이 사회공동체의 건전한 상식과 관

    자세히 보기
  • 서울행정법원 2007. 9. 20. 선고 2006구합46152 판결

    [1] 국가인권위원회법 제44조 제1항은 시정조치의 권고에 관하여만 규정하고 국가인권위원회의 권고조치를 위한 결정에 관하여는 별도의 근거 규정을 두고 있지 않은바, 그렇다면 국가인권위원회 산하 차별시정위원회가 심의의결을 거쳐 행한 결정은 합의제 행정기관인 국가인권위원회가 그 의사를 내부적으로 형성하고, 그 결과에 따라 피

    자세히 보기

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-336-003229378