定型化勞動契約監督機制之嘗試建立

我國勞動契約法於民國二十五年制訂公佈迄今已逾六十年，唯行政主管機關遲遲未依職權公佈施行，可見其適用在我國所產生之爭議與困難。此外，綜觀我國現行法令，對於勞動契約之保護，已有民法「雇傭」與勞動基準法（以下簡稱勞基法）「勞動契約」之規定，因此實務上以及立法政策上對於是否要公佈施行「勞動契約法」，一直存在相當之爭議，反對者認為現行法令對於勞動契約之保障已作相當之規定，縱有缺失，亦可藉由修法彌補其漏洞，以免對勞工保護過多；持肯定見解則以為民法雇傭係起源於市民法時代、而勞基法之屬於公法性質與純屬私法關係之「僱傭契約」不同是不可否認的事實，且由於勞基法並非一體適用所有勞工，再加上我國集體勞動關係功能性不強，包括長期以來政府弱化工會、集體協商代表性不足以及勞工參與制度無法落實，更凸顯出在個別勞動者之保議，特別是勞動契約有其待解決的諸多問題。因此吾人開始思考一個問題，以勞動法之體系而言可分為團體勞動法與個別勞動法，就台灣目前現狀而言，由於長期以來團體勞動法之發展並不健全，短期之內欲以團體勞動法解決勞資問題，本論文基本上抱持著悲觀態度，因此要解決勞資紛爭，就必須藉由個別勞動契約之解釋與規範。而台灣現行勞動契約定型化情形甚為嚴重，因此筆者開始思考是否可將首先規定於消費者保護法（民國八十三年十一月）之定型化契約，以及民法償編增訂第二百四十七條之一（民國八十九年四月）之定型化契約應用在非單純消費交易之勞動契約。再者，權利濫用禁止的觀念亦於焉形成，在私法自治、契約自由的觀念下，個人的價值必須予以尊重，因為法律不能違背個人自由意顧；當個人行使權利極大化反而導致有違公平原則時，如何加以調整，以追求公平與正義，然而什麼又是公平與正義？其判斷標準又如何？都是值得關心的問題。本文之核心立場係將勞動契約，不分主契約或其他附隨性契約例如工作規則，一體視之為定型化契約，如此一來消費者保護法有關定型契約之規定便可「類推適用」於定型化勞動契約中，而民法第二百四十七條之一有關附合契約之規定，因吾國民法並無如英、德兩國一般將定型化契約排除適用於勞動契約之規定，因此民法第二百四十七條一當可適用於勞動契約中。惟民法並未建置有關定型化契約之監督機制，故而本文既然以定型化契約理論運用於勞動契約中，便不得不為其嘗試建立監督機制，並以此作為立法建議與行政管制之參考。

關鍵字

勞動契約定型化；權利濫用禁止；工作規則；定型化契約；監督機制

並列摘要

It has been over sixty years since Law of Labor Contract was established and announced in Taiwan in 1936. However, it has not been put into practice by the executive administration institution because of a lot of argument and obstacles of its ”applicability” in reality. Besides, some argument springs from that currently labor contracts are under the protection of ”Hiring Regulation” in Civil Law and ”Labor Contract Regulation” in Labor Standard Law. Therefore, the opposition is against Labor Contract Law because they believe that current laws have already done a good job, and we can trim a little to adjust if there is something insufficient, so that we do not over-protect the labors. Nevertheless, supporters believe Civil Law and Labor Standard Law are Public Law, which are very different from the private hiring contracts. Also, Labor Standard Law does not fit all labors, and the function of grouping labor relationship is weak, including that the government has been weakening the labor union for long time, that body negotiation is insufficient, and that labor participation system cannot be carried out; all these outstand many problems of protection for individual labor, especially labor contracts. Consequently, I started to think of one question: Labor Law System could be divided into Group Labor Law and Individual Labor Law, and currently in Taiwan, the development of Group Labor Law is not sound, so I do not believe that Group Labor Law is able to solve the problem between the labors and the capitals. In order to solve the problem between the labors and the capitals, we need to rely on the explanation and norms of Individual Labor law. Now in Taiwan, situation of patterned labor contracts is serious; therefore, I am thinking to quote the Patterned Contract in Consumer Protection Law (1994) and in Civil Law Debt Revision No. 247-1(2000) and apply to the labor contract of non-consume-trade. In addition, the perspective of right abuse banning is forming. With the perspective of private law self-ruling and contract freedom, individual value should receive respect because the law cannot violates individual free will. When individual right is maximized and against the justice, how do we adjust it? What is justice? What is the criterion? These are all the questions which need to be concerned. The core standing of this article is taking the labor contract, including the main and the attached contracts like working regulations, as a patterned contract, so that the regulations about patterned contract in Consumer Protection Law are able to ”analogously adapt” to Patterned Labor Contract. As to the regulation about attached contract in No. 247-1 in Civil Law, it could be adapted to labor contract because in Taiwan we do not eliminate the patterned contracts off labor contract as the United Kingdom and Germany do. Nevertheless, there is not a monitoring system for Patterned Labor Contract in Civil Law. If this article would like to apply the patterned contract theory to labor contracts, it is necessary to set up a monitoring system as a reference for legislation suggestion and administrational management.