從日本法檢討我國工會法不利益待遇解僱之規定

A Review of Provisions Relating to Unfair Dismissal of Employees under the Taiwan Labor Union Law from the Point of View of Japanese Law

侯岳宏(Yueh-Hung Hou)

《臺北大學法學論叢》 80期 (2011/12) Pp. 237-267

https://doi.org/10.6774/TULR.201112.0239

摘要

過去工會法第35條第1項為保障勞工團結權，規定：「雇主或其代理人，不得因工人擔任工會職務，拒絕僱用或解僱及為其他不利之待遇」。當擔任工會職務的勞工受雇主解僱，向法院提起訴訟爭執解僱的合法性時，法院有時在事實關係的認定與評價上，否定有勞工所提出雇主打壓工會的事實，有時僅以勞基法第11條等規定進行審查，完全不考慮勞工所主張的工會法第35條第1項違反。此種判斷方式，在理論上是否適當，引起討論，因此有必要進一步加以檢討。事實上，這種基於團結權保障的立法，亦廣見於許多國家。例如，日本的不當勞動行為制度中，在該國勞動組合法（相當於我國工會法）第7條第1款對於不利益待遇解僱加以禁止。該國在運用該規定時，對於不利益待遇解僱之認定，認為當勞工與雇主的主張都成立時，此時不當勞動行為與處分理由產生原因競合。學說及實務也發展出決定性原因說等相關理論。因此，本文基於上述問題的關心，先考察目前我國相關規定及法院判決的傾向後，再研究日本實務及學說對於此問題的處理方式，以作為我國之參考。

關鍵字

不當勞動行為 ； 勞動委員會 ； 工會法 ； 裁決制度 ； 不利益待遇 ； 原因競合 ； 動機競合

並列摘要

The first paragraph of Article 35 of the Labor Union Law regulates that ”the employer or his agent shall not refuse to employ, dismiss, or give other unfair treatments to a worker by reason of his holding office in a labor union.” in order to protect the union rights of the labor. If a worker is dismissed by the employer due to his serves in the labor union, the litigation regarding the dispute over the justice of the dismissal will be initiated before the court. At present, the Judges of the court in Taiwan tend to refuse to admit the fact that the employers discriminate the workers who hold office in labor union, and examine the fact only in accordance with Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act rather than the first paragraph of Article 35 of the Labor Union Law. Such judgments and their reasoning have been criticized seriously by the academic and shall be subject to the rectification further.Many countries have recognized the legislation based on the protection of labor’s right . For example, under the unfair labor practices of Japan, the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Japan Labor Union Act has prohibited the dismissal which is defined as the disadvantageous treatment. In reference of the application of the rule in Japan, when the claims of workers and employers are both sustained, it will result in the mixed motives and as such, the academic and the Judges in Japan have developed the theory of the predominant factor.Therefore, considering the said concerns, this Essay first examines the tendency of the court decisions in Taiwan and relevant regulations, and then researches the Japan’s administrative relief over disadvantageous treatment of union members in unfair labor practices. Finally, this Essay compares the two different legal systems and make the suggestions regarding the part of the Japan laws which can be introduced into Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

Unfair Labor Practices ； Labor Relations Commission ； Labor Union Act ； Labor Dispute Resolution ； Disadvantageous Treatment ； Mixed motives

參考文獻

史尚寬(1978)。勞動法原論。臺北=Taipei:正大印書館=Zhengdai Press=zheng dai yin shu quan。

林更盛(2002)。勞動法案例研究（一）。翰蘆圖書出版公司=Hanlu Book Publishing Ltd.=han lu tu shu chu ban you xian gong si。

臺灣勞動法學會編(2009)。勞動基準法釋義。新學林出版股份有限公司=Sharing Culture Enterprise Co., Ltd.=xin xue lin chu ban gu fen you xian gong si。

陳金泉(2007)。勞動法一百問。三民書局股份有限公司=San Min Book Co., Ltd.=san min shu ju gu fen you xian gong si。

黃程貫(1997)。勞動法。國立空中大學=National Open University=guo li kong zhong da xue。