司法型勞動紛爭解決機制之新變革－以勞動調解為中心

勞動事件具有經濟弱勢保護、迅速解決、合意解決、勞動實務專業之需求，基此，勞動事件應與一般民事財產事件做區別理解，而在勞動紛爭解決機制中格外注意如何促成當事人自主合意解決紛爭及法律外專家之參與。對此，我國於2020年1月1日施行之勞動事件法，強調當事人自主合意解決紛爭、勞資雙方代表參與，並降低程序之利用門檻及促進程序之效率進行，而設置勞動調解程序。該程序雖帶有德國勞動法院法中專家參與司法判斷之色彩，以及日本勞動審判法中專家參與促成調解與作成適當方案（非訟裁定）之性質，但在與勞動訴訟銜接及紛爭解決方式多元化有更進一步之特色性規定。　　再者，雖然勞動事件法針對勞動調解委員會中法律外專家，僅要求其具備「勞動關係或勞資事務相關專門學識、經驗」，並未要求應具備醫療等專業，而未必能妥適處理職業災害補償或賠償等事件，但若將勞動事件法搭配司法院2018年民事訴訟法修法草案關於專業委員之設計，則得於勞動調解程序中引入醫療專家，適切弭補勞動事件中諸如職業災害事件之「業務起因性」、勞動基準法第13條勞工因遭遇職業災害而「不能工作之醫療期間」等專業性認定困難。但在專家引入之層面上，應注意如何維護其中立性及專業性。此種設計，不僅可免去非職業法官之專家參審制的違憲疑慮，若妥適運用，亦應可適足彌補鑑定制度之缺陷，並可同時解決我國司法型調解所欠缺之專家參與。　　最後，本文認為勞動事件法上勞動調解程序與與勞動訴訟程序具有高度連動關係。在勞資爭議法律及生活費用扶助辦法第3條規範下，進入司法之案件相當程度經篩選，且司法型與行政型勞動調解程序之性質與機能不同，為適切維護當事人之程序選擇權，未來勞動事件法允宜擴大採取調解前置之適用。

關鍵字

勞動事件法；勞動調解委員會；專業委員；強制調解；程序選擇權

並列摘要

Labor cases have the needs of economically disadvantaged protection, rapid resolution, consensus resolution, and labor practice specialty. Based on this, labor cases should be distinguished from ordinary civil cases. In the labor dispute resolution, special attention should be paid to how to promote parties to resolve disputes independently and participation of non-legal experts. In response, Labor Incident Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2020, emphasizes the parties ’willingness to resolve disputes, the participation of representatives of both employers and employees, and lowers the threshold for the use of procedures and promotes the efficiency of procedures, and sets up labor mediation procedures. Although this procedure has the color of expert participation in judicial judgment in German Labor Court Act and the nature of expert participation in Japanese Labor Trial Act in facilitating mediation and presenting appropriate proposal (non-litigation rulings), it has multiple rules or ways to connect with labor litigations and resolve labor disputes. 　　In addition, although the Labor Incident Act only requires extra-legal professionals in the Labor Mediation Committee, “with knowledge and experience in labor relations or labor affairs”. It does not require medical profession or other professions, and may not be able to properly handle cases related to occupational accidents. But if the Labor Incident Act is combined with the design of Technical Advisers of the 2018 Civil Procedure Law of Judicial Yuan, medical experts can be introduced into the labor mediation procedures to appropriately handle such labor mediation cases. However, when introducing experts into the judicial procedures, attention should be paid to how to maintain the neutrality and professionality of the experts. Such a design can not only prevent the unconstitutional doubts of the expert trial system, but if properly applied, it may also adequately make up for the shortcomings of the appraisal system, and at the same time address the lack of expert participation in judicial mediation in Taiwan. 　　Finally, this article considers that the labor mediation procedure in the Labor Incident Act is highly interlinked with the litigation procedure. Under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulations on Aids for Legal Service and Living Expenses of Labor-Management Disputes, the number of cases entering the judiciary will been screened to a considerable extent, and the nature and function of judicial labor mediation procedures and administrative labor mediation procedures are different, moreover, in order to properly maintain the parties' right to choose procedures, the Labor Incident Act should expand the application of mediation.