不當勞動行為主觀要件認定與處罰主義之關係

我國對於不當勞動行為裁決制度之救濟方法，採取「回復原狀主義」兼採「處罰主義」之架構。除了得由勞動部不當勞動行為裁決委員會（下稱「裁決委員會」）作成裁決決定並發布救濟命令外，勞動部另得依工會法第45條第1項和團體協約法第32條第1項規定，對經裁決決定認定成立不當勞動行為之行為人處以罰鍰。裁決委員會向來認為行為人之不當勞動行為主觀要件，只需要有「不當勞動行為之認識」，不問行為人是否具有「故意或過失」。然而，勞動部未再認定行為人是否具有「故意或過失」的情形下作成不當勞動行為，即對於行為人作成罰鍰處分，該罰鍰處分可能不符合行政罰法第7條第1項規定之要求。考量我國不當勞動行為制度仍保留「處罰主義」的現實下，存有「裁決決定」與「罰鍰處分」二個行政處分，二者所應考量之因素有所不同，故有必要重新詮釋不當勞動行為主觀要件。為了解決上述法律爭議，本論文第二章先整理我國不當勞動行為制度內容，以及我國具有「處罰主義」色彩之法律規定的立法沿革，分析裁決委員會對於不當勞動行為主觀要件所提出之法律見解。第三章整理日本學說與實務見解在不當勞動行為制度和廢止科罰主義等討論。第四章則藉由日本學說和實務見解，分析我國不當勞動行為主觀要件，並整理裁決委員會所作成裁決決定與行政法院判決，分析我國實務對於不當勞動行為主觀要件之認定是否有歧異見解。最後，提出本文見解。在我國現行不當勞動行為制度下，是否有必要直接透過立法論的方式，廢止處罰主義；又或者在保留處罰主義下，就不當勞動行為之主觀要件應如何有更細緻的操作，希望能透過本篇論文解決不當勞動行為主觀要件之相關法律爭議。

關鍵字

不當勞動行為；主觀要件；行政罰；故意或過失；裁決決定；罰鍰

並列摘要

In Taiwan, the remedy system for the unfair labor practice ruling adopts the framework of " restitution" and " administrative sanctions". In addition to the The Board for Decision on the Unfair Labor Practices (here-in-after referred to as the Board) to make a unfair labor practice decision and issue a relief order, the Ministry of Labor may also in accordance with the Union Law Article 45 I and the Collective Agreement Law Article 32 I, impose fines on the perpetrators who are found to be the unfair labor practice after the decisions. Regarding the subjective elements, The Board has always believed that the perpetrators only need to "realize about the unfair labor practice ", and does not ask whether the perpetrator " committed intentionally or negligently". However, the Ministry of Labor did not reconfirm whether the perpetrator was “intentional or negligent” and imposed fines on the perpetrator. The fines may not meet the requirements of Administrative Penalty Law Article 7 I. Considering the fact that the unfair labor practice ruling in Taiwan still retains " administrative sanctions ", although " unfair labor practice decision " and "fines" both are administrative disposition, the factors of them should be considered differently, therefore, it is necessary to reinterpret the subjective elements of the unfair labor practice. In order to resolve the above-mentioned controversy, the second chapter of this thesis first summarizes the content of the unfair labor practice ruling and the legislative evolution of " administrative sanctions " in Taiwan, and then analyze the Board’s legal opinions on the subjective elements of the unfair labor practices. The third chapter summarizes the discussion of Japanese doctrine and the adjudications on the unfair labor practice ruling and the abolition of punishment. The fourth chapter analyzes the subjective elements of the unfair labor practices in Taiwan based on Japanese doctrine and the adjudications, and analyzes whether there are discrepancies about the subjective elements in the adjudications in Taiwan based on the decisions of the Board and the adjudications of Administrative Court. Finally, put forward the insights of this thesis. Under the current unfair labor practice ruling in Taiwan, is it necessary to abolish administrative sanctions directly through legislation? Or still retaining administrative sanctions, but be more meticulously to interpret the subjective elements of the unfair labor practices. This thesis hopes to resolve the controversy related to the subjective elements of the unfair labor practices.