勞工出勤紀錄與加班事實之證明－兼論勞動事件法相關規範之影響

加班費為我國近年來勞資爭議之重要問題，對此勞動基準法第三十條第五項雖已明文規定雇主具有備置及保存出勤紀錄五年之義務，然實務上當勞工以原告地位向被告雇主請求給付加班費時，在加班事實之舉證責任上，迭生雇主未依法提出勞工出勤紀錄時的事實認定爭議，是故本文首先說明勞動基準法所規定雇主出勤紀錄備置義務以及記錄方式，結合民事訴訟法關於舉證責任之規定，以釐清在加班事實上之舉證責任與減輕的問題，並歸納出雇主無正當理由未提出文書時，其於證明妨礙上之法律效果，並以民事訴訟法第三四五條第一項以及於2020年1月1日開始施行之勞動事件法第三十六條，說明構成證明妨礙時之法律效果。最後關於勞工出勤紀錄之證明效力，以勞動事件法第三十八條之規範，綜合分析與解釋勞工出勤紀錄與加班認定之爭議。

關鍵字

勞動事件法；工作時間；舉證責任；出勤紀錄；加班費；文書提出義務；事案解明義務；證明妨礙；真實擬制；自由心證

並列摘要

Overtime pay is an important issue of labor disputes in recent years. In this regard, Article 30, Paragraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates that ＂employers shall prepare and keep worker attendance records for five years.＂ However, in the case of the overtime pay litigation when labors demand their employers for the overtime pay when disputes occur, it appears that the employers often fail to meet the burden of proof of providing actual workers attendance records regarding the overtime work by law. Thus, this article first explains employers' obligations and methods of preparing workers' attendance records as stipulated in the Labor Standards Law and then combine the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code on the burden of proof to clarify the burden of proof and mitigation of overtime work. Secondly, the article summarizes the legal effects when the employers fail to provide documents without justifiable reasons. Furthermore, this article combines the Article 345, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 36 of the Labor Incident Act which was enacted in January 2020 to explain the legal effect of spoliation of evidence. Finally, the validity of workers' attendance records and overtime verification facts are comprehensively analyzed and interpreted in accordance with Article 38 of the Labor Incident Act.

並列關鍵字

Labor Incident Act ； Work Hours ； Burden of Proof ； Attendance Records ； Overtime Pay ； Document Disclosure Obligation ； Duty to Provide Information ； Spoliation of Evidence ； Legal Fiction ； Free Evaluation of Evidence