Controversy about the dismissal of secretary Ryu Ho-jung

Justice Party lawmaker Ryu Ho-jeong’s’unfair dismissal controversy’ continues. Rep. Ryu said that “there was an agreement process and resolved the misunderstanding” regarding the illegal controversy about the dismissed attendant secretary, but the attendant secretary A pointed out that “it is difficult to say that the problem has been resolved.”

On the 30th of last month, Mr. A, a national member of the Justice Party, said to Rep. Ryu at the National Committee of the Justice Party on the 30th of last month. It is said to have revealed.

The fact that this controversy began with a social media issue raised by a party member of the Justice Party is another reason that the controversy is difficult to end easily. Lee argued, “In the process of dismissing his secretary, Rep. Liu did not comply with the usual dismissal period and violated the labor law by notifying him 7 days in advance.

There are two main reasons for claiming that Ryu violated the labor law. It means that there were no’dismissal notices’ and’management needs and avoidance efforts’.

According to the Labor Standards Act, employers must notify at least 30 days prior to dismissal. If there is no notice, the usual wages must be paid for at least 30 days.

In addition, according to the Labor Standards Act and precedents, in order to dismiss business, it is not illegal to dismiss if urgent management needs and efforts to avoid dismissal are sufficiently made. Some party members of the Justice Party and Mr. A argue that Ryu is the perpetrator of’unfair dismissal’ based on this labor law.

If the secretary falls under the Labor Standards Act, there is room for it to be considered that Ryu violated the Labor Law. However, legally, assistants to the National Assembly, including executive secretaries, are not considered workers under the Labor Standards Act. The assistants are state officials with special positions and are subject to the National Public Service Act. Therefore, in the case of aide to the National Assembly like this case, it is difficult to say that Rep. Ryu violated the Labor Law or other laws because there is no provision for notice of dismissal and there are no legal obligations.

In the case of dismissal of a public official in a special position under the administration, the dismissal screening committee must be passed. There are no separate regulations for public officials in special positions in the National Assembly. An official from the Ministry of Personnel Innovation said, “According to the National Public Service Act, matters related to the hiring, appointment, and work of public officials in special positions in the National Assembly are determined by the National Assembly rules.”

An official from the Ministry of State and Corporate Affairs said, “Because it is practically difficult for 300 assistants to go through the dismissal screening committee every time they increase their rank or go to another office, there is no relevant regulation.” I know that they insisted on introducing a notice system.”

The reactions inside and outside the National Assembly were mixed. An official from the National Assembly said, “Because the executive secretary is not subject to the Labor Law, it is not a violation of the law, but this problem seems to have arisen because the Justice Party is a party with high labor sensitivity and self-consciousness about the right to work.” The reality that the assistants are facing,” he said.

On the other hand, a member of the lawmaker’s office pointed out, “It is unfortunate that Rep. Ryu, who works for labor rights, is following the unfair legality in the National Assembly.”

There have been consistent criticisms that the assistants to the National Assembly were in the blind spot for labor rights. This is because they are dismissed without any notice according to the will of a member of the National Assembly, who is the right of appointment or dismissal. In the case of general public officials, reasons for dismissal are strictly limited and only possible through certain procedures, but there is no such protection mechanism for the assistants of the National Assembly.

An official from the Ministry of State and Company said, “Last National Assembly requested the introduction of a dismissal notice system through the law on the appointment of assistants in order to guarantee the labor rights of assistants. According to the Ministry of State and Corporate Affairs, in the past 20th National Assembly, lawmakers hired about 20 assistants per person. Considering that the number of assistants is nine, the number of assistants who were actually dismissed from dismissal is not small.

In the National Assembly, it is said that it is customary for lawmakers to formally’dismissal’ even in the case of dismissal in case of replacement of assistant staff. ‘Dismissal of the lawmaker’ means that you leave because you want. If a dismissal is notified, it should be treated as a “ex officio dismissal”, which is why it is difficult to find employment in other offices within the industry. A member of the lawmaker’s office pointed out that “dismissing a member means leaving because he wants it, but in reality it means that the member will be dismissed.”
Reporters of Women’s Bureau and Choi Eun-kyung [email protected]