<論文>年休取得を理由とした不利益取扱いに関する議論の再検討

Abstract

本稿では，年休取得を理由とした不利益取扱いの有効性を検討する．労基法136条は，労働者の年休取得に対し「不利益な取扱いをしないようにしなければならない」と規定するが，これは努力義務に過ぎないと解されている．例えば，労働者の年休取得を理由に，使用者が皆勤手当を不支給としても，これが直ちに違法とはされない．裁判例では，不利益取扱いが年休権の行使を抑制しうるほどのものであったか否かによってその有効性が判断されている．しかし，2018年の労基法改正は，上記の状況に影響を及ぼす．これまで，年休の取得は原則として労働者により時季指定されていたが，法改正で使用者により時季指定される場合が創設され，最低でも年5日の年休が必ず付与されることとなった．本稿はこの法改正の影響を分析し，今後少なくとも年5日以内の年休取得を理由とした不利益取扱いは，無効と判断されることを明らかにした．

This paper considers the validity of disadvantageous treatment of workers who have taken paid leave. Article 136 of Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer must strive not to subject a worker who has taken paid leave under Article 39 to disadvantageous treatment”. For example, must an employer pay a “full-attendance allowance” even if a worker did not attend work due to taking paid leave? Since article 136 only means an employer “must strive not to” subject a worker to disadvantageous treatment, disadvantageous treatment such as “non-payment of full-attendance allowance” was not invalid. However, the author reveals that in most cases, disadvantageous treatment is invalid for a worker who has taken up to five days of paid leave per year. Because paragraph (7) of Article 39 newly provides in 2018 that “For each worker, an employer must grant five days of paid leave within one year of the base date at the timing the employer sets”. In principle, although it is the worker's right to specify the dates of paid leave in Japan, most workers are hesitant to take paid leave. That is why paragraph (7) was added to Article 39. Most workers can take five days of paid leave without being treated disadvantageously after 2018 revision.