我國團體協約法關於誠信協商制度之探討—以不當勞動行為之裁決與法院見解為觀察對象

我國近年勞社相關法律受到重視，勞動三法（工會法、團體協約法、勞資爭議處理法）自民國97年來也陸續修訂，逐漸喚醒台灣勞工集體意識，藉由團結權之行使如組織工會、進行團體協約之團體協商以及爭議行為罷工等等，而向雇主爭取更優渥的勞動條件或改善勞動環境。而進行團體協約之團體協商時，勞資雙方如未遵守團體協約法第6條第1項之誠信協商義務或無正當理由拒絕協商，將構成違反誠信協商義務之不當勞動行為。由於團體協約法第6條規定應遵守誠實信用原則進行團體協商，然何謂誠信協商義務，卻為抽象之原則，此部分仍須仰賴實務上個案之判斷與經驗，劃分誠信協商之義務界線，換言之，協商行為是否違反誠信協商義務，是否為無正當理由拒絕協商，須就裁決與判決個案找出認定標準。如違反必要資料之提供義務，屬於無正當理由拒絕協商而違反誠信協商義務，構成團體協約法第6條第1項之不當勞動行為。然何謂必要資料，團體協約法並無明定，仍應依個案之經驗與實務裁決、判決之見解認定。故本文重點將以不當勞動行為裁決制度（或下稱裁決制度）對於進行團體協商時，違反誠信協商義務之行為之認定；以及法院對於進行團體協商時，違反誠信協商義務之認定，作為本文探討重點。以蒐集裁決與判決探討何種行為符合誠信協商之義務，何種行為違反誠信協商之義務，並試圖分類違反誠信協商之不當勞動行為態樣，比較裁決與判決見解有何相同或相異之處。

關鍵字

不當勞動行為；不當勞動行為裁決制度；團體協約；團體協約法；團體協商；誠信協商；誠信協商義務；無正當理由拒絕協商；工會法

並列摘要

In recent years,the rights about labor have been paid more and more attention. Collective Agreements Act, Labor Union Act and the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes influence each other after amending the law. Labor union try to Strive for a better codition with the Collective Bargaining of Collective Agreements Act. So, how to apply to the Collective Bargaining is a important thing for labor union. In the Collective Bargaining of Collective Agreements Act, Duty to Bargain in Good Faith is one of important principle, but it can’t be defined in Collective Agreements Act. We must depend on the Decision on Unfair Labor Practices and Court Decision to realize Duty to Bargain in Good Faith, and avoid falling to Unfair Labor Practices. In the Collective Bargaining of Collective Agreements Act, there are many duties of Collective Bargaining. For example, refusing to bargain with unjustifiable cause, unreplying the plan to other, or refusing Duty to Furnish Information. We need to compare Decision on Unfair Labor Practices with Court Decision to explain Duty to Bargain in Good Faith, attempt to analysize of the standard of Duty to Bargain in Good Faith.