解聘、停聘、不續聘大學教師制度之研究─以教師法第14條第1項第14款為中心

A Study on the Legal System of Dismissed, Suspended or Denied A Renewed Employment of University Teachers ─Centered on Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 of Teacher’s Act

王靖夫(Ching-Fu Wang)

指導教授 ： 林明鏘

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201610419

摘要

近年國內大學或因長期少子化的現象導致生源日漸減少，某些學校師資呈現過多的現象，部分大學乃以「教師評鑑」、「設定升等年限」等法律手段來解聘或不續聘所謂的「過剩師資」。但因無論係公、私立各級學校，對於教師之解聘或不續聘事由於教師法皆有嚴格之限制，因此學校仍須以教師法第14條為解聘或不續聘教師之法律上依據，導致近年來與教師法第14條有關之訴訟案件呈現遽增之趨勢，尤其在大學教師之相關案例中，又以現行法第14條第1項第14款「教學不力或不能勝任工作有具體事實；或違反聘約情節重大」之規定為依據最為常見。
本論文即著重於歸納並論析我國大學教師遭學校以教師法第14條第1項第14款解聘、停聘、不續聘時，程序與實體制度上實務運作之情況，並提出筆者對於各該制度應有之正當程序與實體解釋方向，以期在未來遇到相類似的案例，能妥善解釋與適用，並妥善保障大學教師之工作權。
本論文並就教師法第14條第1項第14款規定中，大學教師之「教學不力」，提出教師之教學自由與學生學習權衝突之問題；就大學教師之「不能勝任工作」，提出其應承接遭刪除之「師道條款」成為新的概括規定，並應與教師法第15條之「現職工作不適任」做出區別。接續並就近日我國大學最常見之爭議，即大學依據大學法第19條所制定之「限期條款」、以及第21條「評鑑辦法」，對大學教師做出不續聘決定時，大學法各該規定與教師法第14條第1項第14款「違反聘約情節重大」處於何種關係，歸納實務見解並提出本文之看法。

關鍵字

教師法 ； 大學法 ； 大學教師 ； 限期升等 ； 教師評鑑制度

並列摘要

In recent years, due to the phenomenon of low birth rate, universtities face the difficulty of enrolling students and there has been an excess of teachers in domestic universities. Therefore, some universities take legal means, such as "teacher evaluation" and "the fixed number of years on promotion," to dismiss or deny a renewed employment of the so-called "excess teachers." However, since either public schools or private schools are strictly restricted for the reasons of teachers' dismissal or non-renewal by Teachers’ Act, Article 14 of Teachers’ Act should be based legally when the schools dismiss or deny a renewed employment of teachers, resulting in a dramatic increase trend concerning the litigation of Article 14 of Teachers’ Act in recent years. Especially, in the relevant cases of university teachers, the provisions of "Specific instances of their not fulfilling a teacher’s duties, or being incompetent to teach; or violating their employment contract in a way which constitutes a serious offence" in Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 of Teachers’ Act are most common.
This paper focuses on discussion and analysis of the conditions of the operations on the procedure and substantive laws in the dismissal, suspense, and a renewed employment denial of Taiwan’s university teachers according to Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 of Teachers’ Act. Besides, the proper explanation of the due procedure and substantive laws is proposed and it is expected to properly explain and apply similar cases in the future and to guarantee the right of work of university teachers.
In this paper, on substantive laws, we point out the conflict between teachers' teaching freedom and students’ learning right based on the provisions of "ineffective teaching criteria" in Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 of Teachers’ Act; in addition, we propose the "incompetent" of university teachers should become the new summarized provisions to replace the deleted "clauses of teachers' dignity" and it should be different from the "ineligibility for the active working" in Article 15 of Teachers’ Act. Then, we induce practice opinions and propose our views on the most common controversy in Taiwan’s universities recently, namely the enactment of the "limited year terms" made by universities in accordance with Article 19 of University Act, the "teacher review system" in Article 21, as well as the relation between the provisions in University Act and the "violating their employment contract in a way which constitutes a serious offence" in Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 of Teachers’ Act when the decisions that university teachers are not reappointed are made.

並列關鍵字

Teacher’s Act ； University Act ； University Teachers ； Limited Year Terms ； Teacher Review System

參考文獻

5.吳佩真、張民杰（2007），〈國內大學教師教學評鑑現況分析〉，《評鑑雙月刊》，9期，頁9-15。

12.林明鏘（2008），〈進口蘋果權利標售與行政契約：評最高行政法院95年度判字第00815判決暨台北高等行政法院92年度訴字第5337號判決〉，《臺大法學論叢》，37卷2期，頁1-37。

16.陳淑芳（2010），〈教師對學校變更與消滅聘約關係不符之救濟─評最高行政法院98年7月份庭長法官聯席會議決議〉，《法令月刊》，61卷6期，頁64-78。

19.楊智傑（2015），〈少子化下大學教師介聘與資遣問題之研究〉，《法令月刊》，66卷8期，頁79-102。

20.楊瑩（2012），〈臺灣的大學教師評鑑制度〉，《臺灣教育》，678期，頁2-14。