受僱人保密義務及競業禁止條款之法律適用之探討

1990年代之後，隨著知識經濟的興起，高科技及技術密集的產業主要的競爭力不外乎來自於各企業花費鉅額資金所研發的「方法、技術、製程、配方、程式、設計或其他可用於生產、銷售或經營之資訊」等非一般涉及該類資訊之人所可以知道的營業秘密，而其秘密性具有一定之實際或潛在經濟價值，對於企業競爭力的影響愈來愈重要，而受僱人在企業間的流動也容易洩漏於原企業中所知悉的營業秘密，而對全世界的高科技產業與經濟造成重大打擊，企業在維護其營業秘密的方式裡面，有許多的企業為了避免此現象發生，往往採用與員工在勞動契約中約定離職後的「競業禁止條款」或「保密條款」的管理措施，在勞動契約上約定競業禁止條款已經在企業營運的方便管理上以及有論者主張約定競業禁止條款在訴訟之舉證上較為簡單，已普遍運用，但另一方面，離職後競業禁止條款所拘束、限制的範圍，往往對於勞工所損失的就業自由甚至勞工賴以維生之技能限制過深，而其侵害勞工權利的深度與雇主所需值得保護的利益是否衡平，也往往是值得探討之處。我國在法律上有關競業禁止之相關規定至2015年12月16日增訂之勞動基準法第9-1條條文之前尚未有任何規定，故自1997年6月10日臺北地方法院85年勞訴字第78號判決出現五標準說以來，在司法實務上亦累積了若干的判斷標準理論來處理勞工離職後競業禁止相關問題，勞動基準法第9-1條亦支持將主張相關補償（代償）制度來補償受離職後競業禁止勞工受侵害之工作權等說法明訂於條文之中。而在離職後約定保密條款，禁止勞工洩露前雇主的營業秘密，只是單純的忠實義務延伸上相對的保密，相較於競業禁止條款上，限制、約束勞工就業權利的侵害等不利益的程度相對小。然而，我國在企業管理的運用上以及學說上探討「競業禁止」為多，唯前雇主在與對造勞工的訴訟中，仍須提出相當證據予審理法院衡量該約定之競業禁止條款是否有效，與勞工於離職後違反與前雇主約定離職後之保密條款之舉證程度是否相當？如程度相當，是否以訂定「離職後保密條款」取代侵害雇主之財產權（確保營業秘密、代償費用之支出）以及勞工之工作權（限制相當年限禁止從事相關行業）之「離職後競業禁止條款」，本文嘗試從2014年之後有關「離職後競業禁止條款」及「離職後保密條款」相關實務判決的整合，比較2者的區別實益，試圖找出較能以公平性、合理性，顧及到勞、僱雙方權利平衡之方式，並做出結論建議。

關鍵字

營業秘密；勞動契約；保密條款；競業禁止條款

並列摘要

With knowledge-based economy booming, competitive advantages technology-intensive industry holds lie in the so-called Trade Secrets, which are about the marketing and administrative information in technology, design and production where the companies pour massive capital. Such are equipped with certain practical and potential economic value and its effect becomes more and more crucial. It is easy to leak Trade Secrets through mobility of labors and it might strike the industry heavily. With the view of protecting its Trade Secrets, a number of co-operations take measures, such as signing contacts of “Privacy Policy” or “Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract” with employees. On the one hand, such contacts are simple answers to administrative management and proof-filing. On the other hand, it is also worth wondering whether the limitation confined within the clauses might violate labor’s future career choices or whether such infringement of labor’s right and the protection of the capital’s interest keep steady balance. Prior to endorsement of Labor Standard Act Amendment 9-1 2015, there had not been any regulations about Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract. Additionally, Amendment 9-1 stands for the support of compensatory acts to the loss which the infractions of labors’ career right bring. On the contrary, prohibition and punishment of leaking trade secrets regulated in Privacy Policy is pure extension of royalty and of secret-sealing. Compared to the confinement Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract embraces, encroachment of labors’ career right is relatively minor. However, in term of the lawsuits employers charge against ex-labors, is it equivalent to assess the effectiveness of Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract while filing proof, comparing to that of violation of Privacy Policy after quitting? If so, whether or not is it accessible to legalize Privacy Policy in substitution for the enforcement of Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract, which infringes employers’ property right as well as labors’ right to work? In this dissertation, through the combination of related practice judgements, which are after 2014, pertaining to Business Strife Limitation Clause of Labor Contract and to Privacy Policy, the author intends to figure out possible fair and reasonable solutions and conclusions in consideration of employers’ and labors’ rights and advantages.