美國勞動法上義務團體協商事項範圍劃定之研究—兼論對我國法之啟示

A Study on Defining and Specifying the Scope of Mandatory Bargaining Subjects in American Labor Law: And its Implications for Taiwan

黃麗竹(Li-Chu Huang)

指導教授 ： 王能君

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.01786

摘要

新團體協約法於民國97年修正通過，100年5月1日正式施行，其中第6條正式引進外國法上誠信協商義務之概念。但是，勞資雙方是否須就他方所提出之所有事項都有協商義務，不無疑問。尤其，傳統上向來認為雇主得片面決定經營權事項。若雇主拒絕對該類事項協商而被認定未盡到協商義務，而構成不當勞動行為，似非妥適。因此，釐清哪些事項是雙方必須協商的，即具有重要性。本文即欲透過觀察美國法多年來對團體協商事項概念之發展，作為我國正面建立義務協商事項概念之借鏡。
在此目標之下，本文第一章將先檢視，我國新團體協約法第6條與第12條是否得作為義務協商事項之規範依據。以及裁決會在相關案件中之見解如何推移改變。釐清我國法的目前存在之問題點之後，第二章首先探討美國法上團體協商義務以及團體協商事項法制形成之過程、勞資關係與團體協商制度、以及協商事項之重要類型。為後續討論建構起基本概念。
第三章與第四章，以美國聯邦最高法院與國家勞工關係委員會所作成的八則之經典案例為對象，探討實務上如何確立義務與任意協商事項之區分，提出哪些義務協商事項之認定標準。由於雇主的經營決策事項在美國法上產生相當大的爭議，故本文特別將之獨立而出進行討論。除此之外，本文亦會特別留意學說對於事項的區分、適用不同的法律效果，以及雇主經營管理特權之主張如何評價與反思。
最後，本於前幾章對美國法之考察，本文將嘗試在合乎我國法的脈絡下，提出義務協商事項之認定標準，與相關效果採擇之初步意見。

關鍵字

團體協商事項 ； 義務協商事項 ； 誠信協商義務 ； 國家勞工關係法 ； 團體協商 ； 團體協約 ； 經營管理特權

並列摘要

The new Collective Agreement Act, which has been modified in 2008, has come into force since May the First, 2011. Article 6 of the new Collective Agreement Act officially introduced in the concept of the duty to bargain in good faith. However, it is questionable whether the employers and the unions are obligatory to discuss about all the subjects proposed on the bargaining table. Since there is a type of subject called “management prerogatives” which has long been thought that the employers could decide unilaterally. Therefore, it is unfavorable for the employers, if they were considered failing to fulfil the bargaining duty and committing unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain about such subjects. Under thecircumstances specifying the scope of the subjects which must be bargained is crucial to both unions and employers. The goals of this study, is to establish the system of mandatory bargaining subjects by inquiring into how the concept of collective bargaining subjects has been developing during the past eighty years under National Labor Relations Act.
To fulfil this goal, in chapter 1, this study examines whether Subsection 1 of Section 2 of Article 6 and Section 1 of Article 12 of Taiwan’s new Collective Agreement Act are suitable regulations for the mandatory bargaining subjects; besides, reviews the developing opinions of Unfair Labor Practice Board in related cases. After figuring out the existent problems, in chapter 2, this study observes the legalization process of the duty to bargain and the bargaining subjects, the labor relations and collective bargaining system, along with the primary categories of bargaining subjects.
In chapter 3 and 4, this study would like to goes on reviewing the leading cases of the U.S. Supreme Court and the National Labor Relations Board, in order to find out how the Board and the Court have built the distinction between mandatory and permissive bargaining subjects, as well as what standards and factors they have suggested to draw the line between the two subjects. This study then focuses particularly on employers’ management decisions, which have provoked intense debate in American labor law. The study also researches the evaluations and reflections made by American labor scholars about the distinction and ramifications of bargaining subjects, and the management prerogatives notion.
Lastly, based on the observations of American labor law, the study tries to present the guidelines to define and specify the mandatory bargaining subjects, and adoption of the legal effects following the mandatory-permissive distinction compatible with the context of Taiwan’s legal system.

並列關鍵字

subjects of collective bargaining ； mandatory bargaining subjects ； duty to bargain in good faith ； National Labor Relations Act ； collective bargaining ； collective agreement ； management prerogatives

參考文獻

洪明賢（2009）。《論勞動法上之團體協商義務—我國法與日本法之比較研究》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，台北。

林祖佑（2014）。《美國排他性協商代表制之研究及對台灣之啟示》，國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文，台北。

侯岳宏（2010）。〈美國與日本不當勞動行為裁決機制之研究〉，《政大法學評論》，第114期，頁301-380。

吳育仁（2003）。〈美國勞資集體協商政策中經營管理權和工作權之界線：從協商議題之分類與法律效果觀察〉，《臺大法學論叢》，32卷1期，頁81-117。

吳育仁（2010）。〈臺灣集體協商法律政策之分析〉，《台灣勞動評論》，2卷2期，頁351-372。