정책비교/노동2020. 11. 20. 18:16


시사저널  공성윤 기자와 오종탁 기자가 영국에 1주일 머물면서 "누구도 말하지 않은 기업살인법의 불편한 진실"이라는 기사를 썼다. 


취재 결과는 한국 정의당의  '중대재해기업처벌법'은 영국의 '기업살인법'을 잘 모르고 ,너무 과도한 기대를 하고 있다는 것이다.  그런데 영국 '기업살인법'이나 정의당 '중대재해기업처벌법'은 산업재해를 줄이는 최소한의 조건이지, 필요충분조건은 아니라는 점을 시사저널은 간과했다.


그런데다  시사저널의 기자들의 결론과 기사 내용은 서로 맞지 않은 부분들도 있고, 정의당 '중대재해기업처벌법'의 의미를 곡해하고 있다.


차라리  공성윤, 오종탁 기자가 영국의 경우,  '영국 안전 감독관은 기소권과 작업중지 명령권'을 가지고 있는데 반해, 한국은 그럴 권한이 없다는 점을 비교하면서 이런 주제들을 집중취재하는 게 한국의 '일터 사망자' 예방법에 기여했을 것이다.



시사저널은 정의당 '중대재해기업 처벌법' 제안자들이 영국 '기업살인업 (2007년 도입)'이 획기적으로 영국 산재 사망자를 줄였다고 주장하는 것으로 기사를 썼던데, 이는 오해이다.  미국, 영국, 캐나다, 독일 등은 150년~180년 동안 '일터 사망 예방'에 대한 '보건 안전법 (Health and Safety at Work Act)'을 갱신해오고 있다는 것은 이미 잘 알려진 사실이다.


영국만 해도 1850년에 이미 '광산 안전 조사법 the Mine Inspection Act of 1850'을 제정했었다. 1849년에 20만명 광부 중에,765명이 광산에서 일하다가 사망해버렸기 때문에, 광산 안전 관리법을 제정했다.  

1850년 이전에도, 영국 의회는 1842년에  '광산법 the Mines Act of 1842'을 제정했는데, 모든 여성들과 13세 미만 소년 노동자를 광부로 고용할 수 없게 만들었다. 


1833년에 9세 미만 어린이 노동 금지를 명시한 '공장법 The factory act of 1833'이 제정된 지 174년이 지난 후, 광산 조사법이 제정된 지 157년이 지난 2007년에 '기업살인법'을 다시 제정한 이유는,  자본가, 경영자, 노동부, 노동조합, 개별 노동자 모두에게 '노동자 일터 사망' 경각심을 높이기 위해서였다. 


시사저널 기사에 1문장 인터뷰만 소개된 빅토리아 로퍼 교수가 쓴 소논문을 보면, 2007년 제정된 '기업살인법'은 실패한 것도 아니고, 그렇다고 해서 엄청난 반향을 일으킬 정도로 큰 성공을 한 것도 아니다. 아직 갈 길이 멀다고 적고 있다. 한국은 영국에 비해 두 배 세 배 열배 갈 길이 멀다. 


영국 UK 2015-2016년 일터 산재 사망자 숫자는 144명이다. (p.75)


빅토리아 로퍼 제안,  "경찰/검찰 기소 그물망을 더 넓게 치면 칠수록, 일터에서 보건안전법을 준수하지 않는 부주의함과 태만함을 예방할 목적으로 제정된 기업살인법은 더욱더 성공할 것이다." "the wider the prosecution net the more successful the Act will be in its aim discouraging negligent health and safety practices" (p.75)



빅토리아 로퍼의 제안의 의미는, 산업재해 책임자에 대한 수사 범위를 더 넓혀야 한다는 것이다. 


한국의 '산업안전보건법'은 그 처벌 조항도 약하고 너무 좁다. 법 적용은 솜방망이였다. 그래서 한국에서 산업재해를 조금이라도 줄이려면 영국, 캐나다, 호주 등이 채택하고 있는 '기업살인법'을 한국 실정에 맞게 더 강력하게 고쳐서 도입해야 한다.


빅토리아 로퍼의 논문 "2007년 기업의 불법살인과 기업살인법 이후 10년 평가"에서 나온 , 실제 기소된 후 '유죄'를 판결을 받은 숫자들이 나오는데, 2011-2017년까지 25건이다. 유죄 숫자가 비록 적더라도, 이러한 노력들은 더욱더 보강되고 더 확대되어야 한다. 


정의당도 '일터 산업재해' 뿐만 아니라, 세월호, 물류창고 화재와 같은 사회적 참사까지도 '중대 재해' 범위로 포함시키려고 하고 있다. 빅토리아 로퍼도 그 논문에서, 영국의 그렌펠 타워 화재 (Grenfell Tower)로 72명이 사망했는데, '기업 살인'의 범위를 확장시켜 그렌펠 타워 화재와 같은 사회적 참화에도 적용시킬 것을 제안하고 있다. 

이를 위해 기업살인 '범죄자' 개념을 재정의할 필요가 있다. 


시사저널 영국 '기업살인법' 취재 목표와 목적, 그 결과가 정의당 '중대재해기업처벌법'은 영국 '기업살인법'을 참고했는데, 실제 영국 가보니, 별 효과가 없더라는 식이면 곤란하다. 


시사저널 기사를 보면서, 몇 가지 유용하고 객관적인 사실을 보도한 점도 있지만, 이미 정해진 정치적 주장을 가지고, 영국에 1주일 머무르면서 그 주장에 알맞는 인터뷰 기사를 삽입함으로써 '불편한 진실'이라기 보다는 '불편한 정치적 주장'으로 흐르고 말았다. 


범죄학 (형법, criminology) 개론서에 보면 '엄격한 책임 strict liability' 라는 단어가 등장한다. 범죄자의 '범죄 의도'를 뜻하는 멘즈 레이어 (mens rea)와 상관없이, 그냥 범죄 행위를 뜻하는 액터스 레우스 (actus reus)만 있으면 성립되는 범죄를 가리켜 '엄격한 책임 범죄'라고 한다. 


이러한 엄격한 책임 범죄에 속하는 것이 '산업안전 보건법' 위반, 과속 등 교통위반, 마약 관리법 위반 등이다. 공공 대중의 복지와 삶의 질을 파괴하는 범죄들이다.  


'기업살인법' '보건안전법' '중대재해기업 처벌법'이 범죄를 반드시 저지르겠다는 '의도'와 상관없는 '엄격한 책임 범죄'인데도, 한국 민주당 다수 의원들과 경영자들은 '그렇게 엄격하게 법을 적용하면, 기업 다 망한다'는 핑계를 박정희 정권 이후부터 지금까지 대고 있다.  


박정희 정권 이후 산업화 도시화 과정에서 자본주의적 소유권을 쥐고 있는 자본가 경영자들이 국회와 노동부에 '압력과 로비'를 행사했고, 그 결과 노동자들의 생명과 값싸게 처 준 보상비만이 아주 '엄격한 사회관행'이 되었다. 


국회의원 20~22% 가량은 변호사, 검사, 판사 출신 법률인이다. 일터에서 노동자의 사망이 '엄격한 책임 범죄 strict liability crimes'라고 범죄학 개론에는 적시되어 있는데, 그들의 동시대 동료 시민들의 죽음에는 그 법을 적용하지 않는다. 


노동자 머리를 깨부수는 크레인 추락 낙하법칙이나 '엄격한 책임 범죄'를 적용하지 않은 그 국회의원들의 정신이나 모두 '비정 (非情)'하기는 매 한가지다.








참고 자료

저자: 빅토리아 로퍼

제목: 2007년 기업의 불법살인과 기업살인법 이후 10년 평가




기업 불법 살해 사례,

(1) 유죄: 2011년 유죄 1건, 2012년 2건, 2013년에 2건, 2014년 4건, 2015년에 9건, 2016년 3건, 2017년에 4건 

(2) 무죄, 기각 : 2014년 2건, 2016년 1건

(3) 보건 안전법 '유죄' 판결: 2015년 1건, 2016년 1건 




기업살인 범죄자에 대한 벌금 부과 기준들과 분류






기업 불법 살해 법률 하에서 '벌금' 




The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide

Act 2007—A 10-Year Review 


Victoria Roper

University of Northumbria, UK


출처; The Journal of Criminal Law

2018, Vol. 82(1) 48–75


2018 victoria roper 10 years after corporate manslaughter and co







참고 서적 : Arnstein, Walter L. Britain Yesterday and Today: 1830 to the Present. (London:D.C Heath and Company). 1983. 

Marx,Karl. Das Kapital 1. 1867 

Siegel,Larry & McCormick,Chris. Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typolgies. (Scarborough:Thomson & Nelson). 2003 

Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요

정책비교/노동2020. 11. 20. 10:25


[중대재해기업처벌법] [기업살인법 corporate homicide act] 캐나다도 이와 같은 법이 2004년에 제정되었다. 그 법 이름은 '웨스트레이 법 Westray Bill '이다. 산업재해가 발생할 경우, 그 처벌 대상은 노동자를 고용한 연방 정부, 주 정부, 공기업, 사기업, 비영리 자선단체, 비정부기구 NGO 등이다. 사고 조사와 기소 담당은 캐나다 경찰과 검사 (crown attorney)이다. 


캐나다의 경우도 한국의 '산업안전보건법'에 해당하는 '일터 (직장) 건강 안전법 occupational health and safe laws'가 있고, 이와 별도로 '웨스트레이 법'이 있다. 


웨스트레이 법안 제정 배경에는 1992년 웨스트레이 석탄 광산 폭발 사고로 26명 광부가 사망한 사건이 있다. 캐나다 동부 대서양 해변가, 노바 스코샤 주, 플리머스에 있는 웨스트레이 석탄 광산에서 메탄 가스에 의한 폭발사고가 일어났다. 


아래 유투브 다큐멘타리는 웨스트레이 석탄 광업소가 영업을 하게 되기 까지 보수당 데이비드 캐머런, 멀루니 수상 등 보수파 정치권의 입김과 선동이 있었음을 밝혀준다.


메탄 가스 폭발 이전에 이미 광부들은 갱도와 메탄 가스 폭발 위험을 감지하고 경영자와 관리자에게 경고도 했지만, 다 묵살당했다.


웨스트레이 광산폭발 희생자들은 관리자 2명을 불법살인과 과실치사로 고발했지만, 증거불충분이라는 이유로 유죄판결을 받지 못했다.


이 법정 투쟁 패배 이후, 피터 리처드가 새 법을 제안했다. 일터에서 노동자 사망시, 고용주와 해당 기업에 대한 처벌을 쉽게 할 수 있는 법안, 웨스트레이 법이 2004년에 제정되었다.


캐나다에서 웨스트레이 법이 제정된 이후, 4건의 유죄가 확정되었다고 한다.  그러나 캐나다 노동자들도 일터 안전에 대해 다 만족하지 못하고, 웨스트레이 법 적용 사례가 적다는 평가도 나오고 있다. 이에 노동운동가들과 주 정부와 연방 정부도 협력해 웨스트레이 법을 시민들,노동자,기업에 선전하고 있다.

















What was the Westray bill (Bill C-45)?


The Westray bill or Bill C-45 was federal legislation that amended the Canadian Criminal Code and became law on March 31, 2004. The Bill (introduced in 2003) established new legal duties for workplace health and safety, and imposed serious penalties for violations that result in injuries or death. The Bill provided new rules for attributing criminal liability to organizations, including corporations, their representatives and those who direct the work of others.


NOTE: The Canadian federal government reuses bill numbers. Currently Bill C-45 is being used to announce Act(s) respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.


Sections of the Criminal Code


The amendment added Section 217.1 to the Criminal Code which reads:


"217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."


The amendment also added Sections 22.1 and 22.2 to the Criminal Code imposing criminal liability on organizations and its representatives for negligence (22.1) and other offences (22.2).



Why was Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code created?

The amendments announced in Bill C-45 (2003), also known as the "Westray Bill", was created as a result of the 1992 Westray coal mining disaster in Nova Scotia where 26 miners were killed after methane gas ignited causing an explosion. Despite serious safety concerns raised by employees, union officials and government inspectors at the time, the company instituted few changes. Eventually, the disaster occurred.


After the accident the police and provincial government failed to secure a conviction against the company or three of its managers. A Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the disaster. In 1998, the Royal Commission made 74 recommendations. The findings of this commission (in particular recommendation 73) were the movement that led to amendments of the Criminal Code.



What are the main provisions of Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code?

Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code:


Created rules for establishing criminal liability to organizations for the acts of their representatives.

Establishes a legal duty for all persons "directing the work of others" to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of workers and the public.

Sets out the factors that courts must consider when sentencing an organization.

Provides optional conditions of probation that a court may impose on an organization.


Who do these provisions of the Criminal Code affect?

These provisions of the Criminal Code affect all organizations and individuals who direct the work of others, anywhere in Canada. These organizations include federal, provincial and municipal governments, corporations, private companies, charities and non-governmental organizations.



Who is responsible for enforcing this Criminal Code?

Police and crown attorneys enforce the Criminal Code. The police and crown are responsible for investigating serious accidents and will determine whether any charges should be laid under the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a very different set of rules, and should not be confused with "regular" occupational health and safety laws (OH&S) and how they are enforced.



Who is responsible for enforcing occupational health and safety laws?

Depending on your jurisdiction, the Ministry (or Department) of Labour or Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) enforces OH&S laws. Across Canada each province, territory and the federal government are responsible for enforcing their own individual set of occupational health and safety laws. Each jurisdiction employs inspectors who visit workplaces to ensure companies are complying with their OH&S legislation. In the unfortunate event of a serious incident, these inspectors conduct an investigation and determine if a charge should be laid under the appropriate section(s) of the OH&S Act or regulation. An accused individual or company may then need to appear in court where a fine or other penalty could be imposed if they are convicted. The police are not normally involved in this process.



Does Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code impact on other legislation?

No. Bill C-45 (2003) was a separate piece of legislation that applied to the Canadian Criminal Code only. It does not intrude upon, or override, other existing federal, provincial or territorial occupational health and safety statutes and regulations. In the event of a conviction; however, it does require the courts to look at any penalties imposed by other jurisdictions in determining a sentence.



Can a company be charged under a provincial OH&S act and the Criminal Code at the same time?

Yes, it is possible. It is common practice for both police and health and safety inspectors to both investigate a serious workplace accident. In most cases, the police and provincial authorities would work together to decide which charges should be made. While it is unlikely that two sets of charges would be made, technically speaking, charges can be laid under both the criminal code by the police and the Occupational Health and Safety Act or regulations by provincial authorities. This situation has occurred in the Millennium Crane Rentals case from Sault Ste Marie, ON.



What types of offences will be targeted?

To date there are eight cases where individuals were charged under the new provisions in the Criminal Code. See below for a brief summary of the charges.

Note: At the time the law was being discussed in parliament, the government commented on its intentions for the Bill stating that:


"the criminal law must be reserved for the most serious offences, those that involve grave moral faults... the Government does not intend to use the federal criminal law power to supplant or interfere with the provincial regulatory role in workplace health and safety"



Has anyone been charged?

Yes. To date there have been eight cases where charges have gone to court. Most of these cases did see other charges and fines issued using the occupational health and safety legislation of the jurisdiction where the incident took place.


On February 11, 2010 Sault Ste Marie Police charged the owner of Millennium Crane Rentals and the crane operator with criminal negligence causing death after a municipal worker was killed while working in an excavation hole. The accident occurred on April 16, 2009 at an excavation site where sewage work was being performed. The crane toppled and fell into the hole killing the worker. In March 2011, the Crown announced that it had dropped the charges of criminal negligence causing death because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence. In July 2013, Millennium Crane Rental was, however, "found guilty of failing to ensure that the crane was maintained in a condition that would not endanger a worker", and fined $70,000 for a violation of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.


On December 24, 2009 four workers were killed and one was seriously injured at a Toronto construction site when the swing stage scaffolding they were on collapsed. Metron Construction and three corporate officers were charged with criminal negligence and fined $200,000 plus a victim surcharge of $30,000. Metron's owner was personally fined $90,000, plus a victim surcharge of $22,500 under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. A total of 61 charges were laid by the Ministry of Labour. The fine against the company was appealed and in September 2013, the Appeal court tripled the fine against Metron, raising it to $750,000 for Criminal Negligence. An additional victim surcharge of $112,500 was levied against the company. The appeals court judge found that the original fine of $200,000 was "manifestly unfit". In 2016, a supervisor was charged and convicted under the Criminal Code, and was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.


On March 17, 2008 a paving company (Transpave) was charged and convicted of criminal negligence and fined $100,000 in the death of an employee, plus a $10,000 victim surcharge.


On May 17, 2007, Mark Hritchuk, a Service Manager at a LaSalle, Quebec auto dealership was charged with criminal negligence after one of his employees caught on fire while using a makeshift fuel pump that had gone unrepaired and broken for several years. Mr. Daoust, a 22 year employee with the company, was engulfed in flames after a spark ignited fuel which had spilled on him, while he attempted to fill the gas tank of a vehicle whose fuel gage had broken and needed repairing. The employee survived but received third degree burns to 35% of his body. The case was brought before a court of inquiry on March 10, 2009. The case went to court in March 2012. Mr Hritchuk pleaded guilty of unlawfully causing bodily harm.


On October 13, 2006 a train struck a maintenance vehicle, killing one worker and injuring three others. Two employees of Québec-Cartier were charged with criminal negligence causing death and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The corporation was not charged. On November 29th, 2010 a Quebec Court acquitted both men on all counts, finding that the incident was an error due to a company culture of tolerance of unsafe practices and deficient training rather than a wanton act of criminal negligence.


On Jun 12, 2006 a landscape contractor was crushed to death when the backhoe his employer was driving failed to stop, pinning the employee to a wall. The investigation of the incident found that the 30 year old backhoe had not received any regular maintenance since the vehicle was purchased and that no formal inspection had been done in the previous five years. Upon further investigation it was discovered that the vehicle had no braking capacity. In September 2010, the employer was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and was given a two year conditional sentence to be served in the community.


On March 22, 2006 BC Ferries vessel Queen of the North sank after going off course and running aground killing two passengers. The ferry navigation officer was charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death. The officer was reported to have been distracted by a personal interaction he was having with another person and did not realize the vessel was off course. On June 24th, 2013, he was sentenced to 4 years in prison and banned from operating a vessel for 10 years. An appeal has been filed.


On April 19, 2004 near the city of Newmarket, Ontario a worker was killed after the ground around him collapsed while digging a ditch at a residential construction site. The construction site supervisor was charge under section 217.1 of the Criminal Code with one count of criminal negligence causing death. In March 2005, the charges of criminal negligence against the site supervisor were dropped in an apparent plea bargain which saw the supervisor agree to three of eight charges under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and a fine of $50,000 with a 25% victim surcharge.


Posted by NJ원시

댓글을 달아 주세요