美國團體協商法制公平代理義務之研究

Research on Duty of Fair Representation in the U.S.Collective Bargaining System

王之穎(Chih-Ying Wang)

指導教授 ： 王能君

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.11318

摘要

於工會法第6條規定下，我國工會組織型態可能出現企業內複數工會並存之情形。而於複數工會並存之實際面下，可能導致各工會因理念與組成員不同，或雇主對於勞動條件統一目的之追求，於資源有限或利害衝突下出現惡性競爭或組織內派系鬥爭之結果，進而造成相對弱勢工會之會員或未加入任何工會之受雇者，於協商過程中遭致不平等或不合理之待遇。然而即使新修正團體協約法第6條第1項課與勞資雙方本於誠實信用原則進行團體協商之義務，惟是否足資援引為限制多數或強勢工會於協商時對於少數或弱勢勞工產生不合理差別待遇之規定，仍不無疑問。本文著眼於此，考量美國團體協商法制為我國新勞動三法修法之主要參考依據之一，開始思考針對同一協商單位內複數工會並存下，工會間權利義務之規範方式，以及工會實力差異所導致不平等或不合理爭議之解決，是否得於未引進美國排他性協商代表制之情況下，援引美國法相應之解決機制―公平代理義務而為適用？
為就上述議題進行深入研究，本文乃於第二章及第三章，透過考察美國實務與學說文獻之方式，分別回顧公平代理義務之起源、判斷標準、具體適用以及救濟制度，試圖解析美國公平代理義務法理之本質，以更全面地掌握系爭法理之面貌與內涵。
於了解公平代理義務法理之形成與發展後，本文透過與我國現行制度進行比較之方式，探討系爭法理與我國法制是否相容，以及是否有引進之必要性。本文於第四章提出不宜引進公平代理義務之理由與對現存問題之建議作法後，於第五章做出總結。本文期盼能透過本議題之研究，於未來面臨相關爭議時，提供更多元、寬廣之思考方向，以落實團體協商法制保護勞動權之核心內涵。

關鍵字

公平代理義務 ； 國家勞工關係法 ； 團體協約法 ； 團體協商 ； 誠信協商

並列摘要

The application of Article 6 of the Labor Union Act results in the possibility of multiple bargaining representatives. Therefore, the unfair and irrational discrimination during the process of bargaining to the miner’s union or to the laborer who does not belong to any organization will be burdened by the conflict of interests and members, the employer’s purpose of uniformity of working conditions, and factional struggle between conflict organizations under resource-constrained situations.
Although both the laborer and the employer shall proceed in good faith when bargaining for a collective agreement according to Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Collective Agreement Act, it is doubtful that the problem of unfair and irrational discrimination described above can be avoided or resolved.
Viewing this controversial issue, it has attracted my attention to the rights and duties of multiple bargaining representatives and whether the Duty of Fair Representation can be applied as the resolution to the unfair and irrational discriminations resulting from the gap of the bargaining power between different unions even if the exclusive representation system is not adopted in Taiwan.
I have performed research on a multitude of opinions and theories of judges, the National Labor Relations Board, and scholars on famous cases surrounding the Duty of Fair Representation, reviewing and tracing origins, judgment standards, and relief systems in order to analyze the essence and content of the doctrine in chapters two and three.
After realizing the formality and development of the Duty of Fair Representation, I have compared the collective bargaining systems between the United States and Taiwan to understand the compatibility of the doctrine. I then provided the reasons why the Duty of Fair Representation is not invoked in Taiwan and gave remedial suggestions pertaining to the defects of current laws in Taiwan in chapter four and concluded in chapter five. Through my research, I would like to open doors and provide more space for different perspectives of relative studies and carry out the protection of collection bargaining systems in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

Duty of Fair Representation ； National Labor Relations Act ； Collective Agreement Act ； Collective Bargainig ； the Obligation to Bargain in Good Faith

參考文獻

洪明賢(2009)，《論勞動法上之團體協商義務—我國法與日本法之比較研究》，臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

林祖佑(2014)，《美國排他性協商代表制之研究及對台灣之啟示》，臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

侯岳宏(2010)，〈美國與日本不當勞動行為裁決機制之研究〉，《政大法學評論》，114期。

吳育仁(2003)，〈美國勞資集體協商政策中經營管理權和工作權之界線：從協商議題之分類與法律效果觀察〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，32卷1期。

吳育仁(2002)，〈美國勞資集體協商之法律政策分析〉，《歐美研究》，32 卷2 期。