실업급여의 수급자격과 구성체계 ― 카나다와 한국의 고용보험법을 기초로 한 비교연구 ―

Abstract

This Article attempts to establish long-term goal for improvement of Unemployment Benefits(UB) in the Korean Employment Insurance Act(KEIA) by compare the difference of UB between in the Canadian Employment Insurance Act(CEIA) and in KEIA. The author chooses statutes of CEIA and KEIA as comparative basic materials for clarifying the difference of UB. He limits the scope of comparative study to two categories of entitlement and types of UB. Firstly, the author points out the differences in two critical requirements of entitlement of UB; “just cause” for voluntarily leaving employment or being not “misconduct” for dismissal and efforts to search for “suitable employment.” In CEIA section 30(1) states that a claimant is disqualified when he or she quits without just cause or when he or she is fired due to his or her own misconduct, and section 50(8) requires that a claimant prove he or she is making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment. 1) “Just cause” is generally defined under section 29(c) of CEIA as “having regard to all the circumstances, the individual had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment,” and sections 29(c)(i)-(xiv) of CEIA specifically provide a list of the circumstances that can constitute just cause. Contrary to CEIA, in KEIA there is no general definition provision of “just cause” and a specific list of it. 2) “Misconduct” is not defined in CEIA and KEIA, therefore the word must be commonly given its meaning by legal interpretation. 3) In KEIA there is no counterpart of “suitable employment” of CEIA. Secondly, he also analyses the differences in the structure and the types of UB. 1) CEIA has dual structure of UB that constitutes regular benefits and special benefits with provisions for low income families, but KEIA has mono structure of UB that provides only regular benefits. 2) On the contrary to the types of UB in CEIA that classify regular benefits and special benefits, there is no special benefits in UB of KEIA. There are four types of special benefits with a family supplement in UB of CEIA: sickness benefits, compassionate benefits, pregnancy benefits, parental benefits and/with a family supplement for low income families. It is a decisive point of difference between CEIA and KEIA that it would provide or not four types of special benefits with a family supplement. The author concludes that the decisive difference of UB between in CEIA and in KEIA results in a different approach to recognize the purpose and character or it's social function of UB. He argues that KEIA would place the principle of labor market rather than the principle of social security on UB for promoting restructuring of industry. Lastly, he contends that it is the most important prerequisite for long term improvement of KEIA to really share the idea of the solidarity in human relations based on community care principle rather than the competitive social relations resting on individual selfish doctrine.