勞動基準法第十一條第五款解僱事由之研究──以「不能勝任工作」之判斷標準為中心

勞動基準法第11條第5款之「勞工對於所擔任之工作確不能勝任時」，是法定解僱事由之一。「不能勝任工作」為不明確之法律概念，學說與實務對於本款事由之解釋適用迭有爭議。因為缺乏深入探討該款解僱事由之立法歷史、解釋論之發展，以及法院個案適用的文獻，而需要進行完整深入的研究。本文採取文獻分析法，以研究相關問題。除了透過相關歷史資料，獲悉本款事由的立法歷史，也藉由分析學術文獻與實務裁判，打破過往的主觀說與客觀說之爭議，提出將「客觀合理之經濟目的」概念作為上位判斷標準，並全面質化分析我國法院裁判的判斷標準。最後，為了提升本款事由操作適用的可預測性，本文提出「不能勝任工作之判斷」及「解僱最後手段性原則之判斷」的二階判斷模式。於第一個階段，先藉由「客觀合理之經濟目的」之上位標準，建構得勝任工作之抽象能力標準後，再將勞工實際之能力與該標準，透過「契約等價性之破壞」或「經濟目的之不達」二種次判斷模式，並斟酌可能影響期待可能性（即是否無法期待雇主不終止勞動契約）之情事，調整判斷標準之寬嚴後，判斷勞工是否不能勝任。於第二個階段，則依據改善可能性與迴避解僱之期待可能性，具體判斷雇主是否應該採取特定之迴避解僱手段，以判斷解僱是否符合「解僱最後手段性原則」。

關鍵字

勞動基準法；終止勞動契約；解僱；不能勝任工作；最後手段性

並列摘要

The subparagraph 5 of Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act, “A particular worker is clearly not able to perform satisfactorily the duties required of the position held,” is one of the listed causes for the termination of labor contract. “Being not able to perform satisfactorily the duties required of the position held” (or “incompetence of worker”) is an ambiguous concept, causing lots of contestation about the construction and application in academics and practitioners. On account of the lack of literatures studying the legislative history, the development of construction, and the application in cases, it needs a complete and in-depth study. This paper used qualitative analysis to study the relevant issues about the cause. By historic literatures, it clarified the legislative history of the cause. By analyzing academic literatures and judgments, this paper broke through the controversy whether the incompetence of worker contains subjective conditions or not, and advised the concept “reasonable objective economic purpose” as the supreme criteria. This paper also comprehensively qualitatively analyzed the criteria of domestic judgments. In the end, to increase the predictability of the application of the cause, this paper advised a two-process of judgment, “judgment of incompetence” and “judgment of the ultra ratio”. In first process, estimate a stander of work ability with the supreme criteria “reasonable objective economic purpose”, then judge the worker’s ability with the stander by two different semi-judgment models, “breach of the equivalence of the contract” and “failure to attain economic purpose”. In the two models, the stander should be adjusted with all the facts concerning the concept of “possible expectation” (i.e., whether it is impossible to expect the employer not to terminate the contract). In the second process, based on the possibility of worker’s improvement and expectation for employer to take specific actions to avoid termination, judge whether the termination breached the ultra ratio principle or not.