勞工基因測試引起之工作場所就業歧視—兼論我國勞工健康檢查之爭議

The Study of Employment Discrimination in the Workplace Caused by Genetic Testing—Dispute on Comprehensive Physical Checkup of Employee

周宥廷(Yu-Ting Chou)

指導教授 ： 郭玲惠

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

自DNA被科學家發現以來，生物科技不斷的蓬勃發展。而隨著對於基因的研究與日俱增，除了在科技上不斷有所突破外，隨之產生的社會問題、法律問題也接踵而來，基因歧視即為其中一樣。本文目的即為討論就業上基因歧視的相關問題。
基因檢測係利用個人的血液，體液或組織來尋找疾病發生的跡象。這些測試可以尋找大的變化，如基因整個片段的丟失或增加，它也可以用來測試小的變化，如DNA內化學鍵的丟失，添加或更改。其他重要的變化如基因被複製過多、基因被關閉或是基因完全消失，也都可藉由基因檢測來測出。
美國最早於70年代初期，為了對抗鐮刀型貧血症（sickle-cell anaemia），近二十個州通過強制性的測試法，其規定新生嬰兒、學齡兒童、結婚證書申請者及監獄犯人等都必須接受測試。但是因為檢測的結果沒有被保密，而且事前也並未對受檢者提供充分足夠諮詢的服務，導致這些受檢者嗣後於就業、服役及保險上都備受歧視。70年代中期，各州才將這種測驗改為自願性質，或完全加以禁止。到2004年時，美國有32個州限制在工作場所中使用基因測試，而且其中有9個州考慮針對這個問題來立法。2008年，前美國總統布希簽署「反基因歧視法」（Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act），主要針對保險及工作場所中的基因檢測及基因資訊使用作限制，使工作場所中基因資訊的流通被明文禁止。本文除介紹美國相關規定外，並將我國相關規定與美國的法律作一比較，討論就業基因歧視於我國勞動法中的可能解決辦法。
我國目前基因測試尚未大眾普及化，因此就業基因歧視案例尚未有耳聞，惟我國職場上雇主對受雇勞工會施予定期健康檢查，故本文將我國職場上就業健康檢查問題一併提出討論。我國就業服務法第5條列舉各項禁止就業歧視的項目，但其中並未包括健康此一項目，唯一比較接近的是對身心障礙者的保護。惟不健全的身體並不一定符合身心障礙者權益保障法中對於身心障礙者的定義範圍，例如：鐮刀型貧血症患者。勞工安全衛生法係為防止職業災害，保障勞工安全與健康而制定，其課予雇主實施勞工健康檢查的義務，第12條規定並規定勞工有接受健康檢查的義務，勞工若不服則須繳納罰鍰。本文即討論勞工是否有接受健康檢查的義務，又其病例資訊是否應告知雇主，若雇主因得知勞工的健康資訊，而對其有不合理的差別待遇，於我國勞動法上的可能解決辦法。
最後本文認為，針對工作場所中因為基因檢測而引起就業歧視的問題，可考慮在就業服務法中增訂禁止基因歧視項目，另外再對實際內容作限制。而就勞工健康檢查問題的部份，就勞工健康檢查資訊的保護應該要有更加完備的保護規定，以免勞工因為健康資訊的揭露而受到雇主的不當差別待遇。

關鍵字

基因檢測 ； 基因歧視 ； 就業歧視 ； 勞工健康檢查

並列摘要

Genetic testing is a type of medical test that identifies changes in chromosomes, genes, or proteins. Most of the time, such testing is used to find changes that are associated with inherited disorders.
People who undergo genetic testing may be at risk for genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination occurs when people are treated differently by their employers or insurance companies because they have a gene mutation that causes or increases the risk of an inherited disorder. This thesis focuses on the genetic discrimination in the workplace. Once employees’ genetic information is being disclosed, it will be another criterion for employers to evaluate their work performance, and hard working ones may be dismissed simply because the disorders possibly exist.
Genetic information is the right of privacy of any individuals and it should be protected carefully in case of employer invasion. Although “Personal Data Protection Law” rules that the individuals’ genetic information can not be revealed, there are too many exceptions for employers to have access to such information without advance notice.” Article 5 of “Employment Services Act” prohibits 16 kinds of employment discrimination, and however, the genetic discrimination is not included.
In the early 1970s, in the United States, some employers refuse to hire African Americans who were carriers of the gene for sickle cell anemia, despite the fact that they did not have the disease. Since then, many states have taken steps in limit the misuse of genetic information, and however, the state-by-state approach provides an inconsistent framework. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission（EEOC）has interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act （ADA）to provide some protections from the use of genetic information by employers. However, the court has never accepted the opinion. In 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act （GINA）was enacted, and it provides new legal protections to Americans by prohibiting the discriminatory use of genetic information by health insurers and employers. Because there is no law to prohibit genetic discrimination in Taiwan, this thesis tries to find some resolutions from the US laws. First of all, it compares the GINA with “Personal Data Protection Law” in the sections of genetic information. Second, finding out whether “People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act” provides protection to carriers as ADA does.
Genetic testing is not popular in Taiwan till present, but the comprehensive physical checkup regulated as an obligation of employees under “Labor Safety and Health Act (LSHA)” has been implemented for many years. According to the LSHA, employers can easily get employees’ health information, which may be used for prejudgment by the employers. Because not only health discrimination in the workplace is not prohibited by the Employment Services Act, but also it relates to individuals’ privacy and equal right in employment, this thesis contains these topics as well. Is it appropriate for the employers legally get the employees’ health data？ Who should inform the employees the result of the health examination？
Eventually, comparing to the US laws, Personal Data Protection Law should be amended to apply to genetic information and health information, and Employment Services Act should be accordingly restated to prohibit genetic discrimination and health discrimination. People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act could identify whether an individual disability or not more widely. Although there has not been any genetic discrimination case in Taiwan, it will happen sooner or later, and it would be better if we could be well-prepared then. Instead of falling behind, the laws should lead the way.

並列關鍵字

Genetic Testing ； Genetic Discrimination ； Employment Discrimination ； Health Examination of Employee

參考文獻

5.李昂杰，基因資訊醫療應用與被害人承諾，科技法律透析，2007年1月。

15.郭玲惠，勞動契約之合意終止與負解除條件勞動契約之限制，台灣社會研究，1996年11月。

21.焦興鎧，我國就業歧視評議制度之現況及實施檢討評析，臺灣大學法學論叢，第31卷第2期，2002年3月。

6. 各國勞工健康檢查及健康管理制度之探討，行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所編印，2000年9月。

19.焦興鎧，工作場所基因測試在美國所引起之勞動法爭議，法制論叢，40期，2007年7月。