公部門低性別比例員工優先進用升遷之研究—比較法之觀察

The Affirmative Action for Underrepresented Sex in Employment Recruitment and Promotion in Public Sector--A Comparative Law Study

黃綉雅(Hsiu-Ya Hwang)

指導教授 ： 邱文聰

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201701081

摘要

本論文討論公部門低性別比例員工優先進用升遷之「積極平權措施」。這種措施旨在對於自歷史以來至今持續受到結構性之不利益之群體，在其求職、受教育或與政府簽約時，由立法者制定法律，提供特別的優惠對待(preferential treatment)，以增強他們的競爭力關注。但這種措施將干預男性競爭者之服公職與工作之平等權，屬於基於性別而為之歧視。本論文針對公務人員，進行歐盟法、德國法、英國法之比較觀察，檢討我國憲法、法律之規定解釋問題及現行政策之改革。
歐盟經由一級法、二級法之規定及歐盟法院判決，對於公部門處於「低性別比例者」(underrepresented sex)，通常為女性，得經由立法引進「積極平權措施」(positive action)，旨在補償既往所造成之不平等，該保障名額規定必須合於目的，而且不得過當(必須合於比例原則)，以免過當而侵害其他性別者之平等權保障。其發展出如下的要求：低性別比例者必須具有與另一性別比例競爭者「相同或相等價值之資格」 (equal or equally qualification)，始能獲得優先進用升遷；但若另一性別比例者經「客觀評估」(an objective assessment)，確認其有個人之特別弱勢事由而須予以保障時，則即使相競爭之低性別比例者有相同或相同價值的資格條件，則也將不能獲得優先進用升遷，而回復到兩性公平競爭，稱為「保留條款」(saving clause)。
1994 年德國聯邦修憲，於基本法第3條第2項引進「國家促進男女之事實上平權之貫徹，，並致力消除現存之歧視」，亦即引進男女積極平權之規定，性質上為「國家目標條款」。由此得導引出，立法者於一定要件下採行女性優先進用升遷之名額規定。由於女性公務人員優先進用升遷規定對於男性競爭者構成逆歧視，兩者均屬「憲法位階之法益」，構成「基本權之衝突」，應由立法者首先進行「利益衡量」(Güterabwägung)，以「創造出實踐之和諧」(Herstellung praktischer Konkordanz)，使兩方衝突的法益能夠得到「最適化之實現」；積極平權措施必須有時間上（zeitlich）與事務上（sachlich）之界線。在法律層次上，德國聯邦兩性積極平權法規定，女性保障名額必須在男女競爭者在相同資格條件下始可作為進用升遷上之個案決定輔助標準，並規定有男性個人具體特殊事由之例外條款(稱為「開放性條款」(Öffnungsklauseln))，而與前述「保留條款」相近；行政機關必須制頒「性別平等計畫」，自行建立階段性的目標(值)與為達成目標所擬採行的措施，並應公告使各界周知，而得進行監督；該計畫的作成須「兩性平等保護官」（Frauenbeauftragter）之參與，而且要經過機關內部「職工委員會」之參與。這是一種「（經由）高權規範的自我管制」(Hoheitlich Regulierte Selbstregulierung)，與英國法所採「反思性管制模式」相近。
英國「2010年平等法」內容上主要規定「禁止歧視」，但也有少數條文規範「積極措施」。本法將年齡、身障、跨性別者(transgender；sex reassignment)、婚姻及民事伴侶關係(civil partnership)、懷孕(pregnancy)及產後照顧(maternity)、種族、宗教信仰、性別、性傾向全部納入，所欲解決的問題包括禁止歧視、積極平權措施、促進「具保護特徵者」與「不具保護特徵者」之間之良好關係。
其要求公部門主體或其他受委託而承辦「公共功能」之私部門主體，須就其所掌領之部門領域，必須踐行「平等影響評估」或「平等分析」，主要報告內容包括該部門(領域)其年度所制訂之內部欲達成之平等目標與措施，以及課予年度公告，近期實際改善情形。其次，就公部門之員工進用升遷而言，該法留給雇主自主決定是否引進「積極平權措施」；但就優先進用與升遷之個案決定，雇主仍須遵守歐盟法發展以來之「相同資格條件」、「保留條款」與「合比例原則」。
於我國，就公部門女性優先進用升遷之保障，我國憲法沒有直接明文，主要的依據為增修條文第10條第6項；司法院大法官對於弱勢保障之優惠措施，也已經作出釋字649、719號解釋。就法律層次，我國公務人員任用法、考績法、陞遷法與性別工作平等法，欠缺性別保障名額之條文。我國已經制定消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約施行法。公約第4條第1項引進性別積極平權規定，仍然留下解釋適用的問題，例如其目的「為加速實現男女事實上的平等」，而且所得採取為「暫行特別措施」。但該施行法畢竟只是法律位階，與其他法律之適用上之優先性不明。我國目前在政策上，主要為「性別平等政策綱領」，其中規定「提升女性參與機會，擴大參與管道」，持續推動並擴大實行「三分之一性別比例原則」。
本論文認為，公部門女性之優先任用進用升遷係依據憲法增修條文第10條第6項基本國策之「憲法委託」，但其造成男性競爭者之「逆歧視」，兩者間形成「基本權之衝突」，首先應由立法者審慎規定，旨在使兩方衝突的法益能夠得到「最適化之實現」；積極平權措施必須有時間上（zeitlich）與事務上（sachlich）之界線。
我國公務人員任用法、考績法、陞遷法與性別工作平等法，欠缺性別保障名額(主要為女性)。其次，歐盟法、德國法、英國法對於公部門之女性保障名額均要求女性競爭者必須與男性競爭者「相同或相等價值之資格條件」，所以乃後續將重點置於職缺之徵選、關於面談之要求、關於任用與升遷與訓練機會之選拔決定、關於男女競爭者之資格要件、在職訓練及公務旅行等面向，旨在去除女性所蒙受之結構上不利益。我國前述法律對此可謂完全沒有規定，應予改進。
我國目前的規定，主要為「性別平等政策綱領」。因涉及男性競爭者之工作或服公職平等權，其中之重要事項應以法律為之，所以是有不足。其次，我國「性別平等政策綱領」所稱女性競爭者優先進用升遷之「資歷相當」要件，應從比較法與我國憲法，而妥為界定。第三，其所規定三分之一性別比例之目標值也欠缺實證上的基礎，只能稱為粗略的階段目標。整體而言，經由比較法觀察，宜以男女競爭者具有相同或相同資格條件作為前提)，此外並應建立不帶有歧視意涵之認定標準及合宜的決策主體與程序，而且也得引進德國法所稱「（經由）高權規範的自我管制」(Hoheitlich Regulierte Selbstregulierung)、英國法「反思式管制模式」，由各行政機關經由性別平等委員會與公務人員協會之參與而制頒「性別平等計畫」，設定該機關之男女積極平權目標與措施，並公告週知以利各方監督。本模式的特色，為國家建立一個管制的架構並建立管制的目標，可稱為「由國家所設定的框架」(ein Staatlich gesetzter Rahmen )，留下業者自我進行管制的空間，其優點一方面在於避免國家之過度介入，另方面在於善用當事人之能力。對於同一公部門主體性別比例之階段性目標與達成期程，因為涉及該主體兩種性別員工之間之競爭敏感性，而且也與機關之傳承與工作性質(含挑戰、壓力等)，國家不宜過度介入。
就我國「性別平等政策綱領」所規定之性別影響評估之規定而言，其名稱為「實施計畫」，性質上為不具外部效力之行政規則，英國早先及德國係以法律規定，我國從而相對有所不足。其次，在實質內容面，其仍有諸多有待精緻化的部分。

關鍵字

性別平等 ； 婦女保障名額 ； 優惠性差別待遇 ； 積極平權措施 ； 英國2010年平等法 ； 性別積極平權 ； 性別影響評估

並列摘要

The topic of this thesis is the positive actions for the underrepresented sex in employment recruitment and promotion of public sector--a comparative law study. Such measures are intended for groups who have been continually and structurally disadvantaged, in fields of employment, education etc. In order to enhance their disadvantaged situations, the legislators endorse special preferential treatment.
Nevertheless, such measures would intervene the male competitor’s equal rights of services in public office and work, and therefore these measures are deemed as discrimination of sex. This thesis aimed at the public sector, and select the EU law, the German law, and the British law, in comparative law observation. This thesis intends to review constitution of Republic of China, along with the several interpretations of justices of constitutional court in Judicial Yuan and suggesting the reform of the current policy and system.
The EU, by practicing the provisions of the treaties and directive, and judgments of Justice in the European Court, it accepts "positive action" in the public sector in case of "underrepresented sex", usually female, due to the reason to compensate for the disadvantaged situation constructed during the past history. The measures must be constructed to the purpose and must be proportionate, so as not to infringe upon the equal rights of other sexes. In order to balance the gender ratio in this public sector department, it establishes the requirements as the following: 1.the sex which is underrepresented must have the equal or equally valued qualification as the other sex competitor. 2.After examining an "objective assessment" and found out there is an individually particular reason or condition to the other sex competitor, although the underrepresented sex has attained the equal qualification requirement, the final decision to promote or recruitment of this very office will return to the fair competition between the two sex, known as the " saving clause".
As for the German Case, in 1994, the German Federal Constitution (known as "Basic Law") was introduced in Article 3 (2):"State should dedicate to the equality between men and women in practice, and the elimination of existing discrimination". This introduction is in defined as "State-goal provision ", from which can be derived: the legislators can under certain restrictions adopt gender quota as a method to improve the disadvantaged situation of women in the workplace.
The gender affirmative actions for female civil servants will intervene against the equal protection of male (competitors).Both are "constitutional interests", and therefore it constitutes the “conflict of the fundamental rights". The legislators should cautiously balance these interests at hand (Güterabwägung), and to reconcile between the two in order to attain practical concordance (die Herstellung praktischer Konkordanz), as a result, both sides can be in the "best of the realization"; positive action must have time limit (zeitlich) and distinguished by its nature (sachlich).
The German federal gender affirmative action law stipulates the women priority in recruitment and promotion, women competitors should attain the same qualifications as men. Secondly, Statue must provide with "Öffnungsklauseln" in the meaning of EU "saving clause”. Thirdly, the authorities must design a "Gender Equality Plan" every four years, including establish phase goals and timeline date and have to publicize it, so that the public can supervise. The "Frauenbeauftragter" should participate in the plan-initiation, and the "Staff Committee" within the organization should also be involved. Fourthly, the selection standards and procedures, the method of how should male and female competitors be defined as same qualified, must be fair and objective. This mode of regulation is called as "regulated self-regulation "(hoheitliche regulierte Selbstregulierung), which resembles "reflexive regulation" in the British Equality Act of 2010.
As for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the "Equality Act of 2010" mainly include "non-discrimination", but there are a few provisions contains "positive actions". First, the main body of the public sector, and those entities which are entrusted to undertake "public function", must carry out the duty of "Equal Impact Assessment" or "Equality Analysis". The EIA include the internal goals and measures to achieve the gender ratio, as well as the annual report of the current figure of the gender statistic data and the recent improvement development. Secondly, in the promotion in the public sector, the law leaves the employer to decide whether or not to introduce "positive actions". However, if adopted, the employer must comply with "the equal qualification" criteria, "saving clause" and" principle of proportionality ".
In R.O.C, women priority in the recruitment and promotion in public sector, is based on Additional Article 10(6) of the Constitution（憲法增修條文第10條第6項）.Justices of the Constitutional Court has introduced No.649 and 719 with regard to affirmative actions. The relevant laws regarding recruitment and promotion of civil servant service, along with "Act of Gender Equality in Employment"(性別工作平等法) at present, all lack of gender quota provisions.
R.O.C has enacted "Enforcement Act of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women"(消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約施行法). Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Convention introduces a gender-based affirmative provision, with precise wording such as the purpose of "achieving the achievement of the de facto equality of men and women" and the adoption of "temporary special measures". But the implementation of this enforcement Act, after all, cannot violate Constitution and laws. Current gender ratio policy in R.O.C, mainly is the "Gender Equality Policy Program", which encouraging that "enhancing women's participation in opportunities and expanding their participations in politics”, and promote the "one-third gender ratio principle".
This thesis argues that the promotion of the priority recruitment and promotion of women in the public sector, is based on constitution Additional Article 10 (6), and it constitutes the conflict of fundamental interests with the male competitors’ rights of equality, and the measure should be carefully tailored by the legislators. Secondly, current "Gender Equality Policy Program" does violate the principle of legality, and the requirement of " seniority "among the promotion and recruitment of female public employee should be clearly defined by the comparative law and according to the constitution of R.O.C.Last but not least, the “one-third of the gender ratio" lacks empirical basis, and therefore is a roughly formulated preliminary goal.

並列關鍵字

gender equality ； gender quota ； affirmative action ； positive action ； Equality Act 2010 ； gender affirmative action ； gender impact assessment

參考文獻

張苙雲、莊淵傑(2004)，〈科層勞動市場之兩性職等差距〉，《台灣社會學刊》，32期，頁149-187。

官曉薇(2015)，〈從《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》(CEDAW)之實質平等評論釋字728號〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，第270期，頁53-56。

董廷璽(2005)，〈美國聯邦功績制保護委員會之研究〉，臺北：臺灣大學政治學研究所，碩士論文。

陳靖涵(2013)，《訂作公務員：國家考試女性限額的女性主義法律史考察》，臺北：臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所，碩士論文。

陳宇萱(2016)，《論女性董事制度作為我國促進公司決策階層性別平等之措施》，臺北：臺灣大學法律學研究所，碩士論文。