日本非典型勞工均等均衡待遇原則之研究

有鑑於臺灣法對於非典型勞工勞動條件保障不足，因此本文以日本法上非典型勞工均等均衡待遇原則之開展與法制建構為研究對象，並從日本之經驗提出幾點建議供未來規範解釋及立法形成之參考。本文首先從臺灣非典型勞工勞動條件保障之現狀談起，在考察既有學說、實務見解後指出現行法下非典型勞工主張均等待遇原則將面臨法源依據不明、構成要件嚴格及法律效果薄弱等課題。本文於考察日本法之發展後發現，非典型勞工均等均衡待遇原則之確立實有賴法律明文規制。在非典型勞工均等均衡待遇原則法制化前，學說上對於非典型勞工勞動條件差距之救濟，係以實踐平等原則以及維持公共秩序為其主要理念，並且須仰賴（1）解釋或類推適用既有規定、（2）援引公序良俗條款作為救濟之法源依據。但囿於非典型勞動型態之特殊性，因此實務上多以二者有本質上差別以及實現私法自治為由而避免介入勞動契約關係。近年來，日本則透過個別非典型勞動專法之修正逐步確立跨僱用型態的均等均衡待遇原則。在2018年通過工作方式改革法且相關規定於2020年4月1日陸續施行後，日本非典型勞工均等均衡待遇法制將一方面採取「不合理差異禁止」之規範模式以確立均衡待遇原則之要求，另一方面採行「差別待遇禁止」以達成均等待遇原則之規制。並且新法另外對勞動派遣設有「勞資協定模式」，使其得透過成立書面勞資協定之方式排除派遣勞工與要派單位勞工之均等均衡待遇要求。最後，本文參考前述日本法之經驗對臺灣法制提出建議。解釋論上，本文就非典型勞工均衡待遇原則之法理依據、審查模式提出建議。立法政策面向，則可採擇日本法之不合理差異禁止的規範模式作為實踐非典型勞工勞動條件均等均衡待遇之手段，並且應以勞動條件差異「合理性」認定作為違法性判斷之核心。

關鍵字

均等待遇原則；均衡待遇；同工同酬；非典型勞工；部分工時勞工；定期契約勞工；派遣勞工

並列摘要

Due to the deficiency of legal protection for working situation of atypical workers in Taiwan, this thesis observed the construction of the principle of the equal and balance of treatment for atypical workers in Japan. For the reference of interpretation of laws and law making process in the future, this thesis also tried to submit advice from the experience of Japan. This thesis starts with the recent condition of legal protection of atypical workers in Taiwan, then pointed out a couple of obstacles the atypical workers may face when they resort to the principle of equal and balance of treatment on the basis of theoretical and practical studies, including that the source of law is unclear, that the legal elements are hard to satisfy, and that the legal effects are frail. Through the observation of the development of Japanese law, this thesis found that the principle of the equal and balance of treatment for atypical workers is necessary to be provided expressly. Before the legalization of the principle, the literature mainly depends on the practice of the principle of equality and the maintenance of public order to construct the remedy of the gap of working situation of atypical workers. Furthermore, this method needs to rely on: (a) interpreting or applying by analogy of existing laws, (b) citing the provision of public order and morals as the legal source of the remedy. However, due to the particularity of atypical employment, it has been avoided intervening the relationship of labor contracts in practice for the reasons of its difference from typical employment in nature and self-rule of private law. In recent years, Japanese law adopted amendments to establish step by step the principle of the equal and balance of treatment in cross employment pattern. After passing the Work Style Reform Act in 2018 and the relevant laws and regulations coming into force on April 1, 2020, the legal system of the equal and balance of treatment for atypical workers in Japan will practice with Prohibition of Unreasonable Different and Prohibition of Discriminatory Treatment to satisfy the requests of principle of equal and balance of treatment. On the other hand, new rules has designed collective bargaining agreement of dispatched employment to abate the requests of equal and balance of treatment for dispatched labors and labors in dispatched entity. Last but not least, this thesis submitted a few advice from the experiences of Japanese law that stated above. For interpretation, there is advice on the legal source and review model of the principle of the equal and balance of treatment for atypical workers. For legislative policy, this thesis holds that we should take the normative model of Prohibition of Unreasonable Different in Japan to practice the equal and balance of treatment for atypical workers, and that the “reasonable causes” of different working conditions should be the core of the determination of illegality.

並列關鍵字

Principle of Equal Treatment ； Balance Treatment ； Equal Pay for Equal Work ； Atypical Workers ； Part-time Workers ； Fixed-term Contract Workers ； Dispatched Workers