批判台灣勞資爭議處理機制：以爭議標的二分法之必要性與處理機制的妥當性為探討核心

吳昭瑩(Chao-Ying Wu)

《台灣勞動評論》 1卷1期 (2009/06) Pp. 13-47

https://doi.org/10.29744/TLR.200906.0002

摘要

台灣之勞資爭議處理法將勞資爭議依其性質區分為二大類別，一為權利事項之勞資爭議，一為調整事項之勞資爭議，前者循司法途徑解決，後者則循行政途徑處理。然在實務運作上，關於勞資爭議法律性質之認定，卻往往無法明確區分，無論是學界之論述、行政主管機關之解釋或是法院之判決等，皆莫衷一是，並無共識，行政院勞工委員會在認定上，甚至產生所謂第三類爭議，致使勞資雙方當事人無從依據勞資爭議處理法解決勞資紛爭，令當事人無所適從。立法院雖於98年6月5日三讀通過勞資爭議處理法修正案，增列權利事項之勞資爭議得透過仲裁程序處理，惟其處理機制仍採爭議標的二分法之分類，未能根本解決前述問題與缺失。
本文針對台灣勞資爭議處理採爭議標的二分法所衍生之問題、程序選擇權法理等，採文獻探討法，蒐集學者論述、調解及仲裁案例、法院裁判及相關文獻，並加以整理歸納，以作為本文主張之佐證。本文從憲法所保障人民之程序主體權所衍申之程序選擇權法理，探討台灣勞資爭議處理法採爭議標的二分法之必要性，認為此項區分不僅無必要性，甚至引發諸多缺失，應予廢除。本文認為，根據憲法所保障之程序選擇權法理，關鍵在於應承認人民對於紛爭解決之方式享有處分權，而非強調爭議標的二法之分類；且只要係勞資爭議，皆應肯認當事人對於其所適用之處理程序享有選擇權。本文並進一步以程序選擇權法理為中心論點，尋求值得勞資雙方當事人信賴且易接近的、並符合憲法所保障人民程序主體權之勞資爭議處理機制，作為結論與建議，期能完整保障勞工權益，以供未來修法之參考。

關鍵字

勞資爭議 ； 權利事項爭議 ； 調整事項爭議 ； 程序選擇權 ； 程序主體權

並列摘要

The Settlement of Labor Disputes Law of Taiwan modified on June 27, 1988, sorts labor disputes into rights disputes and adjustments disputes. The former shall be settled by conciliation or judicial procedures provided for in this Law and the latter shall be settled through conciliation or arbitration procedures provided for in this Law. However, examining the discussion of the academic articles, explanations of the government authority or the verdicts of court, there is no common consensus on discrimination between rights disputes and adjustments disputes. Even the definition of the term ”labor disputes” from the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) of the Executive Yuan causes debate. All these factors confuse the workers and employers who are trying to settle disputes in accordance with The Settlement of Labor Disputes Law.
Based on the constitutional view of ensuring civilians have the right of procedural choice, this article attempts to discuss the necessity of a dichotomy of labor disputes adopted by The Settlement of Labor Disputes Law, and suggests that the dichotomy is unnecessary and should be abolished. The key to settle labor disputes is the acceptance of people’s right to choose disciplinary action in thesettlement of a labor dispute. Thus, this article centers on the authority to choose procedures and looks for a dispute settlement system welcomed and, trusted by the workers and employers and conforming to the Constitution. The conclusion and suggestion of this article also serve as a reference for future revision of the law.

並列關鍵字

labor disputes ； rights disputes ； adjustments disputes ； the right of procedural choice