職場性騷擾之雇主責任及不利處分之禁止──以韓國法為比較法之素材

我國職場性騷擾中雇主所負擔之責任主要規範在《性別工作平等法》第13條，學說上區分為事前預防義務與事後補救義務。在事前預防義務中，法律採取區分事業規模大小之規範方式，而進行不同程度之預防措施；在事後補救義務中，則不論事業規模大小，雇主均須盡到立即有效之糾正及補救義務。此等區分方式於實務上遇到何等困難？前階段放寬小規模雇主之義務內容，後階段卻要求其與受僱者人數30人以上之事業負擔相同義務，是否合適？均值得檢討。另外，在職場性騷擾常遭忽略者為《性別工作平等法》第36條中禁止雇主對於申訴勞工等為不利處分之規定，學說稱之為禁止報復條款。不過本條之保護對象、不利處分之態樣、不利處分與申訴性騷擾間之因果關係均不明確，有待仔細地討論。韓國之《男女僱用平等及工作家庭併存支援法》中，關於職場性騷擾事業主之義務規範與我國不盡相同：在事前預防義務之部分，未依照事業規模而有所不同，且更著重於預防教育義務；惟針對小規模事業，韓國政府投注較多資源以扶助落實教育義務。在事後補救義務部分，2017年11月之修法明確化性騷擾事件發生後各階段事業主應盡之責任，並要求雇主對於申訴勞工在確認事實以前提供暫時保護措施。而關於不利益措施禁止之規定，該國重視防止性騷擾二次被害之發生，避免勞工因使用申訴資源而受到不利益之待遇，因此豐富化了不利益措施之態樣，在實務亦建構出相對於我國更完整之不利益措施與申訴性騷擾間之關聯性審查機制，值得我國借鏡。

關鍵字

職場性騷擾；雇主責任；事前預防義務；事後補救義務；不利處分禁止；二次被害；關聯性審查

並列摘要

In our country, the obligations which employers shall take the response to in sexual harassment in the workplace are stipulated in Act of Gender Equality in Employment, article 13, and are separated into ‘obligation of prevention’ and ‘obligation of correction and remedy’. In the ‘obligation of prevention’, our stipulations are different between employers hiring under 29 employees and hiring over 30 employees, while the latter has a stricter regulation. However, this distinction does not happen in the ‘obligation of correction and remedy’. Every employer shares the same level of obligation. What kind of problems these distinguishments are faced with, and whether it is suitable for obligations being differed at the beginning while being the same after sexual harassment happened are worth discussing. Besides, while discussing sexual harassment in the workplace, the provision that is often ignored is article 36 in Act of Gender Equality in Employment, which prohibits employers to take any unfavorable measures toward employees who appeal to formal remedies. One of the scholars called it anti-retaliation provision. Nonetheless, the range of protection, types of unfavorable measures, the causation between the unfavorable measures and the appealing are not clear enough, which needs further discussion. In Korea, the regulations in Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act are not the same as ours. They do not distinguish employers’ obligations based on their scales. They relatively put more emphasis on the preventive education of sexual harassment and invest a pile of resources toward employers in smaller scales. Through the amendment in Nov. 2017, they clarified every step of liabilities that employers shall take and regulated temporary protection to victims before assuring that sexual harassment truly happens. Concerning the anti-retaliation provision, they emphasize on preventing ‘secondary victimization’ in sexual harassment from happening and offering protection to victims who appeal to formal remedies. Therefore, they enrich types of unfavorable measures in their clause and also build up causation censorship between the unfavorable measures and the appealing, which are much clearer than ours and worth learning.

並列關鍵字

sexual harassment in the workplace ； employer obligation ； the obligation of prevention ； the obligation of correction and remedy ； anti-retaliation provision ； secondary victimization ； causation censorship