不當勞動行為裁決機制的「行政」救濟與「私法」決定之檢討－以日本制度為借鏡

An Examination Study of "Administrative" Relief and "Private Law" Decision Regarding the Dispute Resolution for the Unfair Labor Practices-Lessons from Japan

侯岳宏(Yueh-Hung Hou)

《臺北大學法學論叢》 76期 (2010/12) Pp. 95-145

https://doi.org/10.6774/TULR.201012.0095

摘要

行政院歷次送交立法院審議的勞資爭議處理法修正草案中，關於裁決機制，大概可區分爲兩種類型。一種是以2002年勞資爭議處理法修正草案爲主，將不當勞動行爲爭議，區分爲涉及私權爭議與非涉及私權爭議，並且設計不同處理程序與效力。另一種則是2007年版所提出的行政救濟方式。目前在立法院三讀通過的2009年版本，一方面保留行政救濟之方式，一方面也賦予裁決委員會審查涉及私權爭議事件的權限。這樣的設計，具有何種特徵，在理論上可能會遭遇什麼樣的問題點，是目前極須討論的對象。
比較國外立法例，日本對於不當勞動行爲之救濟，存在著透過勞動委員會來救濟的行政救濟，與直接向法院提起民事訴訟的司法救濟兩種方式。而這樣的救濟方式，雖然與我國之救濟方式略有不同。不過，由於我國裁決機制可說是一種併存「行政」救濟與「私法」決定效果之方式，在討論不當勞動行爲的行政救濟與私法效果有何特徵之點上，與日本有共通之處。
因此，本文之目的，主要針對日本不當勞動行爲事件的處理，從行政救濟與司法救濟比較之觀點，檢討兩者之異同。並且透過日本制度的檢討，國目前行政院所計畫採行之制度，在理論上可能存在的問題點，以作爲將來修法之參考。

關鍵字

不當勞動行爲 ； 勞動委員會 ； 團體協約法 ； 工會法 ； 勞資爭議處理法 ； 裁決制度

並列摘要

The Dispute Resolution for the unfair labor practices could be generally categorized into two types, which have been set forth in the amendments to the Settlement of Labor Disputes Act proposed by the Executive Yuan and forwarded to the Legislative Yuan for review. The first type focuses on the amendments to the Settlement of Labor Disputes Act as of 2002, which classifies the disputes of unfair labor practices into disputes involving private rights and non-private rights, and renders various resolution procedures and legal effects. The second type focuses on the mechanism of the administrative relief set forth in the same Act as of 2007. The amendment to the Act as of 2009, which has been passed by the Legislative Yuan, retains the mechanism of the administrative relief and also provides the Committee with the rights to review the disputes involving private rights. The provision of such 2009 version triggers further and necessary study on the characteristics in the construction of the above legal mechanism and the problems which may occur in theory.
In Japan, two types of systems are available for the Dispute Resolution to address the employers’ unfair labor practices. The first one is the reliance on the administrative relief procedures through the Labor Commission, and the second one is to resort to the judicial relief of the civil procedures in the court. Notwithstanding the fact that regimes of the Dispute Resolution in Japan is slightly different from that in Taiwan, such two regimes still have something in common in terms of the characteristics of the administrative relief and the effect of private law with respect to the unfair labor practices, since the regime of the Dispute Resolution for the unfair labor practices in Taiwan is a coexistence of the ”administrative” relief and ”private law” decision.
The aim of this Article is to analyze the characteristics and examine the differences between the administrative and judicial remedies for unfair labor practices in Japan. In addition, this Article intends to review the legal mechanism which the Executive Yuan currently plans to adopt and examine the problems which possibly exist in theory by analyzing the regime in Japan in order to present the proposals for the amendment to the Taiwan legal realm.

並列關鍵字

unfair labor practices ； Labor Relations Commission ； Collective Agreements Act ； Labor Union Act ； Settlement of Labor Disputes Act ； Labor Dispute Resolution

參考文獻

成台生(2002)。工會之研究—以美國、日本與中華民國為例。高雄復文圖書出版社=Kaohsiung: Fuwen Publisher=gao xiong fu wen tu shu chu ban she。

焦興鎧()。

黃程貫()。

王厚偉、黃琦雅(2008)。我國不當勞動行為救濟制度之窘境與展望。臺灣勞工。13

立法院公報處，院會紀錄，立法院公報，第93卷第33期，2004年6月。Legislative Yuan, Records of the Plenary Sessions (yuan hui ji lu), The Legislative Yuan Gazette (li fa yuan gong bao), vol. 93, no. 33, June 2004