我國與日本調職法理之比較研究

A Comparative Study on the Legal Theories of Transfer between Taiwan and Japan

陳薏伩(Yi-Wun Chen)

指導教授 ： 王能君

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.01836

摘要

於繼續性的勞動關係中，為因應各種經營上需求，將勞工配置到適當處所之必要性便應運而生。雇主透過調職命令權之行使，可以達到促進人才流通、幹部養成教育及迴避解僱等多樣目的。惟於此同時，勞工亦可能因調職而於職業生活或家庭生活上受有一定程度的不利益。正由於調職牽涉到勞資雙方利益狀態之拉鋸，如何於其中求取平衡點向來為調職適法性判斷上之重要課題。

本文透過日本及我國學說與實務調職法理之比較研究，分就調職命令權根據、法令及勞動契約對調職命令權之規制、調職命令權之行使規制三個層次為觀察，以歸納出兩國對於調職事件之處理特色及應檢討之處。首先，由於兩國勞動實態上雇主常會於工作規則中訂定調職條項，加以法令規制有賴舉證方能落實、勞動契約規制功能有限，故調職適法性之判斷重點幾乎會落在行使規制層面上。

其次，經本文將兩國實務運用現狀為比較觀察後，建議於行使規制層面以我國現行民法第148條第1項做為調職權利不得濫用之規範基礎，並參酌日本法上調職命令權利濫用原則所揭示勞資利益衡量之精神，區分為雇主與勞工雙方利益狀態為考量。於細部具體基準上，本文以為日本法上「顯著超出通常應忍受程度」之不利益判準對於勞工過苛，我國並無盛行長期僱用制度故不宜援用。

至於我國1985年內政部函釋所揭示之調職五原則，本文以為僅為判斷調職適法性之五項例示性原則，於個案中應視勞資雙方利益狀態斟酌使用並適時加入新要件判斷，且部分要件尚有具體化之空間。儘管針對調職五原則常有原則內涵不明確之批評見解，惟經二十餘年實務判決大幅援用後，亦已大致形成符合我國勞動實態之合理判斷基準，而本文以為此些基準仍可做為調職權利是否濫用之判準。因此調職五原則有待進一步分類調整並細緻化，且於適用之際應針對不同類型之調職案件採取不同寬嚴程度之審查方式，以符合個案正義。

關鍵字

調職 ； 調動 ； 人事異動 ； 日本勞動法 ； 東亞塗料事件 ； 權利濫用原則 ； 誠信原則 ； 調職五原則 ； 調動五原則 ； 勞動基準法 ； 勞動契約 ； 工作規則 ； 利益衡量

並列摘要

In the continual labor relationships, in order to respond to all kinds of business need, it is necessary to transfer employees appropriately. By ordering a transfer, employers can develop employees’ work abilities and job positions within the enterprise organization, as well as supplement and consolidate the workforce. Nevertheless, a transfer may also disadvantage an employee concerning his or her working life and family life. Therefore, in order to balance the benefits between employees and employers, the process of judging the validity of a transfer is extremely important.

This study observes the transfer issues from a comparative perspective, comparing its theory and practice in Japan and Taiwan. In both countries, by drawing up a transfer clause in the work rules, employers usually obtain the right of transferring. In addition, other kinds of limitations on transfer orders cannot function well enough. These two factors combined make exercising limitations become the key to the validity of a transfer.

This study then argues that in Taiwan we might apply Paragraph 1, Article 148 of the Civil Code as the exercising limitations on transfer orders. Furthermore, as the doctrine of abusive exercise of transfer right in Japan suggests, it is necessary to balance the benefits between employees and employers when judging the validity of a transfer. The strict measure “apparently exceed what the employees would normally endure” in Japan, however, might not be applicable in Taiwan, since we do not have the long-term employment system as Japan does.

As for the five principles of transfer in Taiwan, this study considers that they are no more than five exemplificative principles which help us judge the validity of a transfer, which means sometimes it is necessary to add new elements, and some of the elements of those principles need to be concretized. Since the five principles of transfer are constantly applied in judicial decisions for more than 20 years and measures that have been formed roughly accord with the labor situation in Taiwan, this study suggests that those concrete measures are useful for judging whether there is abusive exercise of transfer right. As a result, the five principles of transfer only need to be further classified and detailized. Besides, in order to preserve case justice, we might categorize cases and then apply different standards when using these principles to judge the validity of a transfer.

並列關鍵字

transfer ； reassignment ； relocation ； Japan labor law ； doctrine of abusive right ； the five principles of transfer ； Labor Standard Law ； labor contract ； work rule

參考文獻

2.王能君，工作規則不利益變更之法律效力—最高法院八十八年度台上字第一六九六號民事判決評釋—，臺灣勞動法學會報第四期，2006年3月。

5.林誠二，再論誠實信用原則與權利濫用禁止原則之機能—最高法院八十八年度台上字第二八一九號判決評釋—，臺灣本土法學第22期，2001年5月。

8.郭玲惠，金融控股公司與企業併購對於勞工勞動條件保障之初探—以調職為例，律師雜誌291期，2003年12月。

4.張國璽，「日本安全配慮義務法理之形成與發展—兼論我國民法第四八三條之一之規定」，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2005年7月。

3.林文鵬，終身雇用制對我國企業的影響，國立屏東商業技術學院學報第三期，2001年10月。