勞資爭議不當勞動行為裁決機制之政經分析，2011-2012

The Political Economy of Labor Dispute Settlements on Unfair Labor Practices in Taiwan, 2011-2012

呂文琪(Wen-Chi Lu)

指導教授 ： 蕭全政

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.01634

摘要

新勞動三法自2011年5月1日施行以來，整體內容變動過大，勞資雙方面對新的法制環境以及層出不窮、多元態樣的勞資爭議事件，必須重新調整思維與處理態度；其中《勞資爭議處理法》引進美國「替代性爭議解決」（ADR）概念，增設「裁決」專章，期快速回復受侵害者之勞工權益；惟《工會法》禁止不當勞動行為之規範僅針對資方而定，制度本質上已欠缺完備性與公平性。
我國「裁決機制」雖僅實施一年多，但就勞資爭議涉及私權與非私權之分流設計已突顯制度之複雜性及時效性問題，裁決委員會之組織運作與美日相較，亦有獨立性、專責性不足之疑慮，導致裁決制度面臨治絲益棼之窘境，本文經由實例研究發現，裁決結果則偏向有利勞方。
本文係就我國裁決制度設計進行分析，以釐清法制面、執行面之問題癥結，並以美國、日本不當勞動行為裁決機制的特色與運作，作為我國借鏡。整體而言，冗長複雜的裁決程序、裁決決定衍生效力未定的情形，皆與當初引進ADR之立法意旨相悖離；裁決委員會之組織架構、委員資格與遴聘方式，則是其獨立性、專責性不足之主因。本研究亦針對有關裁決決定涉及私權之程序與爭議，裁決委員欠缺法定職權足否論斷涉及私權之勞資爭議；以及裁決委員會在未具準司法權情形下，對於裁決案件之審查密度是否足以維護人民權益；裁決決定與所發布之作為或不作為命令是否允當，有無與勞工政策過度連結等等焦點；以文獻分析方式，從宏觀之政經脈絡，探討不當勞動行為裁決機制的形成與運作；並透過美國、日本制度的比較，對我國現行法令規範內容及制度的妥當性加以分析，藉由實例評析所獲得之結論，對未來制度之調整方向提出修法建議或改進措施。

關鍵字

勞資爭議；不當勞動行為；裁決；替代性爭議解決；私權

並列摘要

Since the ‘New Labor Tri-Act’ has been activated on the 1st of May 2011, the drastic change of overall content, which led to an unfortunate result of everlasting labor disputes in multiple occasions. Both capital and labor should adjust the attitude and reform the methodology in order to face the newly established legal environment. The Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes took a reference from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) of United States, updated with a chapter of ‘Decision’, expecting it could provide similar performance of recovering the right of those labors who fall victim rapidly. Yet, the regulation of Anti-ULP (Unfair Labor Practice) is set particularly aiming at capital, which shows well with a lack of integrity and fairness.
Though the ‘Decision mechanism’ has now run more than a year, it demonstrated only complexity and time-consuming on labor dispute and private/non-private divergence issues, which, comparing to the United States and Japan, contains lesser independency and questionable specified responsibility, and drove situation to further chaos. It has been proven, by researching case studies, closed Decisions benefit the side of labor in higher portion.
In the dissertation, despite analyzing the design of ‘Decision mechanism’ to clarify problems on legal and execution phase, comparing with Decision mechanism operation and features of ULP from United States and Japan as study material, the following content as well conducted up-to-date closed Decision cases analysis, then discuss problematic of ‘Decision mechanism’ relative procedure and specific cases executed by the ‘Board for Decision’, according to analytical case studies. In general, the over extended and complex design of Decision procedure, and the yet to be confirmed Decision-derived effect have against the will of introducing and import the structure of ADR to the new Act. It should be the organization of Board for Decision, alongside with committee member qualification and election system that have disturbed the Act’s independency and responsibility-specification. Debate should it be appropriate executing the Decision as an order while the procedure of Decision comes across the private right. Discuss issue that before the responsibilities of members of Board has been clarified, should the Board able to produce conclusion of cases those have private right involved. And, under circumstance Board for Decision is not qualified with quasi-judicial power, does the review intensity powerful enough to protect the rights of people. Explore possibilities of connection and relation between Decision, including orders of certain actions to take and not to take, and labor policy. The thesis discusses formation and operation of ULP Decision, and evaluates the suitability of current decree content and its system by matching the equivalent in both United States and Japan. The end result is presumed to provide practical suggestion and support to the system for possible future adjustment.

並列關鍵字

Labor disputes；Unfair Labor Practices； decision；Alternative Dispute Resolution（ADR）；Private

參考文獻

吳正旺，2010，〈勞動三權與勞動三法的範疇與趨勢之研究〉，《萬能商學學報》，15：117 -134。吳育仁，2004，〈國際勞工運動與國際勞動基準〉，《問題與研究》，第43卷第5期，87-119。

吳昭瑩，2009，〈批判臺灣勞資爭議處理機制：以爭議標的二分法之必要性與處理機制的妥當性為探討核心〉，《臺灣勞動評論》第1卷第1期，13-47。

鄭津津，2002，〈我國勞資爭議處理制度之現況與檢討〉，《中正大學法學集刊》，6，65 -104。

蕭全政，2004，〈經濟發展與臺灣的政治民主化〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，1（1）：1-25。

侯岳宏，2010，〈不當勞動行為裁決機制的「行政」救濟與「私法」決定之檢討－以日本制度為借鏡〉，《臺北大學論叢》，75：95-145。