釋字736號後我國公立高中以下教師救濟新思維-以高等行政法院與台灣省教師申訴評議委員會案例為主

本研究旨在探討我國公立高級中等以下教師救濟制度的整體脈絡及發展並探討在釋字第736號後，教師權益受損時可尋求之救濟途徑。研究方法主要採取文件分析法與判決研究法，輔以社會研究法、比較研究法與交叉表分析探討教師訴諸行政訴訟之現況及運用實務判決案例進行類型化，加強法規範與實務之連結，以建構教師救濟制度之全貌。在量化研究結果部分，以台北、台中、高雄高等行政法院高中以下教師訴諸行政訴訟進行分析，得出5項結果： 1. 就各法院間的行政訴訟數量而言，以台北高等行政法院件數最多，台中高等行政法院最少。而2011到2015年間興訴比例差別不大。 2. 整體而言行政訴訟的類型，以撤銷訴訟最多；再者是合併之訴，而合併之訴中，佔最大多數的為撤銷之訴加課予義務之訴。 3. 整體之判決結果，勝訴17件；敗訴77件；程序駁回51件；一部有理一部無理5件；移送行政訴訟庭2件；關係人參與訴訟2件。而考績與懲處被認為其並非行政訴訟之訴訟標的，故皆以程序駁回。 4. 就訴訟標的結果來看，訴訟標的以聘任最多，其次為退休年資，再次為考績、公保事件、懲處與級俸，其餘皆不超過5%。 5. 高中以下教師在高等行政法院訴諸行政訴訟之比例不高，比例約0.41%。在裁判分析部份，實務上，介聘、超額介聘、閱覽卷宗、曠職、留支原薪、懲處-記過、參與校務會議、不服職務分派、因校園性騷擾而提起之管理措施、教師服務證書加註服務成績優良等措施原先被視為學校內部管理措施，不得提起行政訴訟，但其確與教師權益有所關聯，根據釋字736號意旨，研究者認為在釋字736號後，應思考開放提起行政訴訟之可能性。本研究亦根據研究結果提出下列4項建議： 1. 加強教師法治觀念之宣導 2. 縣市主管教育機關舉辦專業法律課程供審議人員參與 3. 應全盤檢驗現行與教師有關之法令，是否有違釋字736號之意旨 4. 對於高度屬人之價值判斷之類型建立標準程序

關鍵字

釋字736號；教師權益；行政訴訟；教師救濟制度

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to explore the overall context and development of the public teacher’s （under senior high school）remedy system in Taiwan and to explore the remedies that can be sought when the teacher's rights and benefits are damaged after the J.Y. Interpretation 736. Researcher adopted documentary analysis and judgment analysis as the main research methods, and supplemented by the social research, the comparative research and the cross-table analysis to analyze the current situation of administrative litigation and the application of practical judgment cases to strengthen the link between laws and practice and to construct the teacher's remedy system. Accordingly, the results of the quantitative analyses from Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung high administrative court which the teacher filed (under public senior school) indicate the five conclusions below: 1. In terms of the quantity of administrative litigation among the courts, the quantity of Taipei high administrative court is the largest, and the Taichung high administrative court is the least. And the difference between these five years (2011-2015) is not significant. 2. For the type of administrative litigation, the Administrative Actions for Revocation is the largest, and following is Administrative Actions for merge. In the Administrative Actions for merge, the Administrative Actions for Revocation and Administrative Actions for Effecting is in the majority. 3. In terms of the results of judgments, there are 17 pieces of winning suits, 77 pieces of losing suits, 51 pieces of procedural rejection, 5 cases that is part of them is reasonable and the another is unreasonable, 2 cases which is transferring to the administrative litigation court and 2 cases is the stakeholder should to participate in the litigation. And the performance rating and disciplinary are considered not the subject of administrative litigation, so they are dismissed by procedure. 4. In terms of the results of subject-matter, the most is the recruitment, the next is retired seniority, performance rating, the events of civil servant and teacher insurance act, disciplinary, salary and the rest are not more than 5%. 5. The proportion of administrative litigation which the teacher (under public senior school) file is not high. The ratio is about 0.41%. According to the judgment analysis from administrative court, many of the measures were originally considered school management measures, not to file administrative litigation, but it is indeed related to the rights and interests of teachers, including teacher transfer among schools, surplus-teachers transfer among schools, the rights of reading the files , absence without reasons, staying in the original salary, administrative punishment -record a demerit, the rights to participate school synod, disagreeing job allocation, the school management measures arising from school sexual harassment events, teacher service certificate filling service is excellent. Therefore, according to meaning of the J.Y. Interpretation 736, should consider the possibility of opening up administrative litigation after the J.Y. Interpretation 736. Four suggestions based on the results of this study are as follows: 1. To strengthen the concept of law for teacher. 2. The education authorities should held professional legal courses for reviewers. 3. Inspection of existing laws and regulations relating to teachers, whether there is in violation of the meaning of the J.Y. Interpretation 736. 4. To establish standard procedures for the type of administrative discretion on high private events.