團體協約之成立與生效要件，兼論團體協約法第13條之效力－簡評臺北地方法院106年度勞訴字第224號民事判決

A Study on the Formation and Validaty of Collective Agreement and the Effect of Article 13 of Collective Agreement Act: Comment on Taipei District Court 106 Lao-Su-Zi No. 224 Civil Judgment

邱羽凡(Yu-fan Chiu)

《律師法學期刊》 3期 (2019/12) Pp. 71-90

摘要

工會為提升與維護勞工勞動條件與經濟條件，得進行具有必要性之一切集體行動，包含團體協商，而當事人基於契約自由得選擇締結團體協約之團體協約協商，或是為一般性團體協議之團體協商；於勞資雙方達成協議但未以團體協約之方式簽訂時，即屬一般性團體協議，其亦屬受工會法保障之工會活動，是以勞資間實存在雙軌制之團體協商。就經由團體協商以締結禁搭便車條款之問題，我國團體協約法第13條本文已明文承認勞資雙方得為此項約定，且因其為拘束工會與雇主或雇主團體之債法性條款，故亦得經由一般性團體協議為約定，仍具有一般性債權契約之效力。惟在約定禁搭便車條款時，臺北地方法院106年度勞訴字第224號民事判決認為團體協約法第13條但書屬於強制規定，亦即勞資雙方若約定禁搭便車條款但未同時設有除外約定，即屬違反團體協約法第13條之強制規定而屬無效。此一解釋不但有違團體協商之集體性私法自治性質，且強制當事人經由禁搭便車條款對於第三人之權利進行干涉，實產生逾越協約當事人權限之問題，且第三人實得經由參與其他工會，並由該工會與雇主訂立協約以取得相同或更高之給付，或是依其個人之契約自由與雇主協商，以達到取得與協約相同水準之給付的目的，法院要求當事人應「兼顧第三人獲得同等勞動條件之可能性」，實與團體協約法第13條有所不符，亦與禁搭便車條款為保障積極團結權而限制消極團結權之真意有所矛盾。

關鍵字

團體協約 ； 團體協約法 ； 一般性團體協議 ； 工會安全條款 ； 禁搭便車條款 ； 消極團結權

並列摘要

To improve and maintain working conditions and economic conditions, it is legitimate for a union to carry out all necessary collective actions, and the union is free to choose collective agreement or general collective agreement as a contract type based on the freedom of contract. When the employer and the union reach an agreement not in the form of a collective agreement, it is a general collective agreement which is a kind of union activity protected by Labor Union Act. Thus, there is a two-tier collective negotiation system between labor and management. According to article 13 of Collective Agreement Act, contract parties could stipulate that an employer shall not adjust working conditions for workers who are not covered by the agreement without justifiable reasons. Because this kind of differentiation clause limits union and employer or employer organization’s obligations effect, it could be stipulated in the form of general collective agreement which remains the effects of obligations. However, Taipei District Court 106 Lao-Su-Zi No. 224 Civil Judgment adjudged the exception clause of article 13 as a mandatory provision. In other words, differentiation clause is void due to mandatory provision violation if it is stipulated without exception clause. The judgement not only violates collective private autonomy of collective bargaining, but also enforces contract pal-ties interfering with the rights of third parties through differentiation clause. In fact, the third party could join other union and through the agreement between that union and employer obtain the same or higher payment, or negotiate with the employer on his/her individual contract in order to achieve the same level of payment as the differentiation clause. In short, the judgement's requirement of ＂considering the possibility of a third person obtaining the same working conditions＂ is inconsistent with Article 13 of the Collective Agreement Law, and it also contradicts the true meaning of differentiation clause which limits negative freedom of association in order to protect the right to active solidarity.

並列關鍵字

collective agreement ； Collective Agreement Act ； general collective agreement ； union security clauses ； differentiation clause ； negative freedom of association