• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.119-126
• /
• 2015

The primary purpose of the general duty clause is to offer an extra measure of protection to employees in the workplace. Most standards implemented under OSHA are targeted at a specific hazard. The general duty clause, however allows inspectors to cite employers for exposing its employees to a recognized hazard that has not been specifically addressed in the regulations. Congress intended the general duty clause to be a limited means of advancing the purposes of the OSHAct. But OSHA has not always regarded the general duty clause as the limited means for protecting the safety and health of employees that Congress intented. OSHA attempted to expand the scope of the general duty clause, at times improperly, to make it a more flexible enforcement tool. OSHA's interpretation of each of the restrictions on the scope of the clause has changed over the years. In recent years the general duty clause has been utilized as a sometimes controversial mechanism for enforcement of safety guidelines that have not yet been specifically addressed by statute or regulation. The most notable example of this was application of the general duty clause to ergonomic hazards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2007

Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.5-21
• /
• 2004

The study aims to propose plans to give credit approval to those who obtain authorized civil qualifications, in accordance with the enforcement regulations under the Clause 7, Article 4 of $\ulcorner$the law on credit approval and others$\lrcorner$. Preceding studies on the grounds and principles of credit approval, analyses on the related references and materials, and surveys asking the managers of authorized civil qualifications their opinion over giving credit approval to authorized civil qualifications were conducted as the methodology of this study. Besides, a conference inviting experts from the relevant fields was held to specifically overview the contents and levels to be examined by qualification items, to conduct a face-to-face survey on directions to take in the credit approval of authorized civil qualifications, and to analyze the level and the degree of the difficulty of questions in the examinations of authorized civil qualifications. The contents and the level of credit approval in this study are as follows. For the authorized civil qualification items unable to formulate criteria in accordance with the principles of credit approval taken in the national technique qualification and other national qualifications, two factors were put under consideration for setting the level of the credit approval. First, the level and scope of work were investigated. Second, the content of qualification was compared with the course work of college. The degree of difficulty in the scope and performance of work was reviewed by specialized qualification and general qualification, respectively. Specialized qualification indicates whether or not the required knowledge and technique are acquired for performing duty in specific work fields. It falls into service fields and qualification items except qualification items on general clerical work of the national technique qualification and other national qualifications. To the contrary, general qualification is to prove the degree of acquisition of knowledge and technique for improving the basic competencies throughout diverse types of occupations. It includes competencies to verify language proficiency, mathematical and statistical capacity, problem settlement, negotiation and communication skills. When the authorized civil qualification came under the specialized qualification, the level of qualification was determined in comparison with the level of work of national qualifications. In the case of the general qualification, the credit to be approved was settled by conducting a comparative analysis on the course work of college.