- 學位論文
論雇主懲戒權行使之界限--以我國法院判決之分析為中心
The Limits of the Right to Take Disciplinary Measures: Focus on the Analysis of the Judgments in Taiwan
摘要
對於勞動關係中雇主懲戒權行使之根據與界限，我國學說上雖然有相關討論，但法院判決所採見解以及適用情形，則未見有全面性之研究。著眼於此，本文嘗試就法院判決作全面性整理分析，並且參照日本懲戒法制，分析我國懲戒法制特徵與問題，除釐清我國學說與法院判決之全貌之外，並期待能對於日後我國法院判決判斷懲戒處分之合法性，提供較完善之判斷方式。 本文整理分析法院判決後發現我國懲戒法制有以下數項特徵：在懲戒事由上，種類各式各樣繁如牛毛；在懲戒手段方面，除了手段間差異性大有在法院案件上以懲戒解僱之手段佔絕對多數。此數項特徵均與日本相近，可謂台日的共通特徵。其次，我國法院審查所據之原則，程序上原則多以辯明權之賦予與除斥期間為主，在實體上原則方面以比例原則、罪刑法定原則、一事不二罰原則等為多。惟程序上原則亦有不少法院要求處分內容明確性原則、禁止處分理由追加原則以及程序約定原則之內涵，在實體上原則方面則亦要求平等對待原則、個人責任原則、法律優位原則、離職後懲戒禁止原則等。此亦為特徵之一。 另外，我國法院雖肯認得對雇主懲戒權行使進行審查，但現狀上仍有數點問題存在。首先，懲戒定義較不明確致生難以區辨人事權與懲戒權；並且對於懲戒權根據、雇主以勞工企業外非行為由予以懲戒之根據與界限上亦有模糊不清之處。其次，在金錢制裁手段上，則可能有參照日本懲戒法制加以限制之空間。 再者，雖法院判決不乏適用上述各原則者，但尚未建立一套完整審查架構且在適用上亦生問題。程序上原則方面，包括處分內容明確性原則、禁止處分理由追加原則與程序約定原則之內涵少有留意，且判斷時點未明確一致。在除斥期間上，非解僱手段懲戒處分是否得類推適用之問題，少見表示。在實體上原則方面，比例原則中必要性原則（在解僱案件中，即為解僱最後手段性原則）有肥大化情形、罪刑法定原則適用未徹底、記滿三大過是否有違一事不二罰原則未見相關說明等。上述各點皆為問題所在，宜加以改善。 此外，本文參照日本懲戒法制，更進一步提出一判斷懲戒處分合法性之架構。此包括了：第一、依照懲戒定義判斷系爭處分是否為懲戒處分；第二、進一步說明懲戒權之根據；第三、認定懲戒事由本身之合法性與懲戒事實是否該當於懲戒事由；第四、判斷懲戒手段之行使是否具備合法性以及合理性。而現狀上法院適用原則時未貫徹之處亦應謀求改善，以求對勞工權益周全之保障。
並列摘要
‘Disciplinary measures’ ordinary signifies disadvantageous treatment in the employment relationship which is clearly indicated as a sanction or punishment of an employee for having violated enterprise order. In the usual enterprise, it is institutionalized as disciplinary discharges, counseled dismissals, suspensions, wage decreases, warning, reprimands, and the like. From the employer's perspective, such disciplinary measures are essential to enterprise order and interests. For workers, however, they represent a serious disadvantage in the labor relationship. Legal regulation has, therefore, been required to adjust both interests in a suitable manner. Considering the necessity of studying ‘discipline’ issue in Taiwan, this research intends to review the current system of ‘discipline’ in Taiwan. First of all, this research analyzes the existing regulations and judgments related to ‘discipline’ to indicate the deficiencies of Taiwan's current system. Second, this research studies the Japen's current system, looking into the interaction on such issue among the courts and the scholars. Finally, taking advantage of a reference to Japan's system and paying equal attention to theory and practice, this research attempts to provide some concrete solutions and reforms to resolve the problems existing in Taiwan's current system.