限制出境與勞工保護

大量解僱勞工保護法第一條後段：「本法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。」行政程序法即為「其他法律」，在本法未規定時原有適用之餘地。惟本法第十二條第二項規定禁止出國「處理程序及其他應遵循事項之辦法，由中央主管機關定之。」行政院勞工委員會即根據本法第十二條第二項之授權，於九十二年七月三十日訂定「大量解僱勞工時禁止事業單位董事長及實際負責人出國處理辦法」。該法規命令規定事項與行政程序法競合時，何者優先，即生疑義。本文係從法制面探討，本法禁止出國程序涉及是否有行政程序法適用、權利救濟程序、禁止出國是否為行政罰，及一般法律原則適用等。

關鍵字

限制出境；勞工保護；比例原則；不當聯結禁止原則

並列摘要

The last paragraph of the Article 1 of ”Large Number Lay-Off Labor Protection Law” (”Lay-Off Law”) stats: ”Matters not herein provided shall be governed by other applicable laws” ”The Administrative Procedure Law” is one of the aforementioned ”other applicable laws”, and could be applied while certain matters are not stipulated under ”Lay-Off Law”. However, the Article 12 Section 2 of ”Lay-Off Law” stipulates that the central administrative authority shall have the rights to issue the enforcement rules of the procedure and other relevant compliance matters regarding restrictions to go aboard. According to the authority granting by ”Lay-Off Law”, the Council of Labor Affairs Executive Yuan Taiwan R.O.C. drafted and issued the ”Enforcement Rules of Restrictions to Go Aboard on the Presidents or Actual Responsible Person while Dealing with Large Number Lay-Off Affairs” (”Enforcement Rules”) on July 30th 2003. When the ”Enforcement Rules” competes with the ”The Administrative Procedure Law”, it brings out one issue: which one should be apply first? This article is trying to discuss this conflict from the following perspectives: whether there is room for the application of ”The Administrative Procedure Law” while employing the ”Enforcement Rule” at the same time? What is the procedure for the rights remedy? Whether the restriction to go aboard constitutes an administrative penalty? Finally, if there is any possibility to apply other general legal principles while facing this conflict?