英美法國家對吹哨者合法爆料行爲之認定：評最高法院98年臺上字第1042號判決

A Review on the Whistle-Blowing Decision of Supreme Court's 2009 Tai Shan No. 1042: With the Viewpoint under the Laws of Common Law Countries

謝棋楠(Qi-Nan Xie)

《台灣勞動評論》 3卷1期 (2011/06) Pp. 35-76

https://doi.org/10.29744/TLR.201106.0002

摘要

最高法院98年臺上字第1042號判決，因勞工舉行記者會，以言詞及張貼標語方式主動爆料並蓄意抨擊其公司收取管線補助爲不義之財，認爲其破壞與公司間之信賴關係，而認定公司之懲戒解雇成立。吹哨者保護制度牽涉言論自由、個別勞工忠實義務與社會對政府或事業單位監控之公共利益(Public Interest)。而對吹哨者之保護，牽涉到如何平衡個別勞工應對雇主負忠實義務之私人利益及監督與防制政府或事業單位之違法不當行爲之公共利益。近年因美國恩隆案(Enron Corporation)發生，主要英美法系國家，美、加、英、澳等國之立法，皆加強吹哨者保護與義務。內部人員之爆料或報告，有助於盡早偵知不法行爲，而減少公眾監督與調查之必要成本。近例如，美國沙賓法(Sarbanes-Oxley Act)與英國公共利益揭露法皆予規範。各規定之合法爆料行爲之要件不一，有強制要求需符先在雇主內部循管道向上報告之要件者。也有強制指定爆料對象應限於能匡正該不法事宜者之官方機關者。爆料行爲爭議案件之審查，應著重客觀合理性，一併考量相關互爲衝突之利害事務之價值，在對爆料行爲之公益上與忠實義務私利上之價值判斷需保持中立性。

關鍵字

吹哨者 ； 忠實義務 ； 公共利益

並列摘要

Supreme Court's decision of 2009 Tai Shan No. 1042 involves a whistle-blowing action by employee disclosing to media its employer's extra charge on customers in the name of pipe-subsidy fee. The court approved its employer's discharge action on the reason that the duty of loyalty has been breached.Whistleblowing is viewed as a mechanism to serve public interest in the societal control over government and large organizations. Whistleblowers have people become aware of institutional commission of illegal acts and alert general public and law enforcement officials. However, it is a delima that employees' duty to loyalty may be absued for furtherance of personal interests during the process of whistle-blowing. Article 30 of our Labor Safety and Health Act provides similar stipulations.In common law countries, more whistle-blowing legislations have been enacted to protect the whistle-blowers, due to the aftermath of Enron collapse, for instance, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of the US and Public Interest Disclosure Act of UK. After reviewing the whistle-blowing legislations of the US, UK, Australia and Canada, the author finds that Taiwan is extremely short of whistle-blowing legislations. Even though there is no law governing the necessity in protecting whistle-blower, the courts should use their power to grant more concerns on balancing the public interest and private interest of the employers.

並列關鍵字

Whistle-blower ； Duty to loyalty ； Public interest