論加班申請制度對加班費請求權之影響—以判決與訪談為中心

有關加班事實之認定，由於牽涉到勞工得否依勞動基準法第24條向雇主請求給付加班費之問題，常成為勞資雙方爭執之所在。為能減少因加班所產生之紛爭，許多雇主設置「加班申請制度」，規定勞工須先經過一定之申請流程並獲許可始得加班。且於2020年開始施行之勞動事件法第38條，亦規定以出勤紀錄之時間推定為受雇主同意而執行職務。然而，就加班事實之認定上，並未因該制度或該法之建立而迎刃而解。反之，新的問題亦隨之而生。即加班申請制度之合法性、於訴訟上之有效性、勞動事件法之影響與職場之實作方式，皆有待解答。本研究為能釐清該議題之相關爭議，先爬梳現存之文獻，進而確立具體之研究問題。同時為求對此議題有更全面之理解，筆者設計以文獻分析與實證研究之方式，了解相關法條之立法演變、法院判決與訪談結果。透過此等研究方法，筆者發現民事法院與行政法院就有關加班申請制度有效性之見解產生歧異。且加班申請制度於職場上之實作方式，也會因不同公司規模、管理風格而有所差異，無法一概而論。而加班申請制度之終極問題，應是在處理「濫用加班申請制作為規避給付加班費之雇主」與「滯留工作場所騙取加班費的勞工」兩種極端狀況。筆者認為，不論是從「風險控管」或「風險承擔」之角度觀之，皆是雇主較有能力去應對。故在探討加班申請制度之爭議時，宜帶入此種思考模式作出判斷，較能衡平勞資雙方之權益。

關鍵字

勞動基準法；勞動事件法；加班申請制度；加班；加班費；延長工作時間；延長工作時間工資

並列摘要

How the fact of overtime work should be ascertained is often the subject of disputes between employers and employees, as it affects whether workers are entitled to overtime wages under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act. In order to prevent disputes, many employers have established an "overtime application system," which requires workers to go through an application process and receive permission before they can work overtime. In addition, Article 38 of the Labor Incident Act, which came into effect in 2020, also presumes that workers have received their employer’s permission to work during the work hours recorded on their time sheet. However, several problems related to ascertaining the fact of overtime work remain and new problems have also arisen. The legality and the validity of the overtime application system, the impact of the Labor Incident Act, and the practice in the workplace are all issues that need to be addressed. In order to examine the controversies surrounding these issues, this study first reviews the existing literature to identify specific research questions. Furthermore, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding, the author also analyzes the extant literature and conducts empirical research to account for the relevant legislative changes, court decisions, and the results of the author’s interviews with stakeholders. The author finds that the civil courts and administrative courts differ in their views on the probative value of the overtime application system. Moreover, the implementation of the overtime application system varies according to the size and management style of the company. Ultimately, the purpose of the overtime application system is to deal with two extreme situations, namely employers abusing the overtime application system to avoid paying overtime and workers staying at the workplace to obtain overtime pay by deception. The author argues that, from the perspective of both risk control and risk commitment, employers are more capable of dealing with the risks involved. It is advisable to adopt this line of thinking so that the rights and interests of employers and employees can be balanced.