| 摘要: | 勞工個人力量微薄，惟有團結勞工力量，方能以較為對等的團體地位與雇主交涉談判合理的勞動條件。基於勞資雙方自治原則，政府當局亦樂見其成，又為防止雇主對勞工之基本權如團結權、協商權與爭議權有所壓迫，遂於2011年新修正施行之勞資爭議處理法中，對於此類違反工會法第三十五條以及團體協約法第六條第一項之不當勞動行為，得由裁決程序處理之並成立不當勞動行為裁決委員會，仿效美日做法以專責單位處理不當勞動行為案件。
勞資爭議處理法的裁決程序提供勞資爭議事件當事人於訴訟外另一種解決紛爭之機制，對於法院而言減緩案源與訟累，對當事人而言提供即時有效迅速解決爭議方式，對於保障勞工權益，穩定勞雇關係上，學者多肯認其貢獻。因其解決紛爭所設計之程序的立法目的在於快速回復勞工權益等，故有別於訴訟程序之冗長，並賦與相當法律之效果，以拘束當事人確實遵守公正第三方所作成之裁決等，對於該裁決如有不服，當事人仍可循相關勞動訴訟程序之管道予以救濟。
看似設計完美無缺的裁決程序，如有不服各有相關勞動訴訟程序可為銜接救濟，然而，不當勞動行為裁決立法目的在於避免雇主以其優勢的經濟地位不法侵害法律賦予勞工之團結權、集體協商權及爭議權及快速回復勞工權益為核心，其本質上仍為訴訟外之救濟途徑，仍須接受法院最終審查，與權利保護為核心之相關勞動訴訟程序有別，裁決程序所涵蓋範圍包含私權與非私權之爭議，銜接我國司法二元制度下，依照公法關係之行政訴訟與私法關係之民事訴訟由當事人分別提起相關勞動訴訟程序救濟之，雖然，以目前裁決案例來看，不當勞動行為裁決成立多為雇主不利之行政處分，對於因此不服而分別提起訴訟所引起之訴訟經濟不利益，亦由雇主承擔以觀，似能減少雇主對不當勞動行為之恣意，然就我國不當勞動行為之設計，移植美日國家之不當勞動行為之規制，銜接以我國大陸法系為主的訴訟體制，不同於美日不當勞動行為的設計1，是否堪稱完美無瑕，不無值得推敲與研究之餘地。
不當勞動行為裁決委員會成立至今所作成之裁決案例計有85例(表1)，其中不服裁決提起相關之勞動訴訟程序經判決在案有30件(表2)，從實際案例中比較裁決程序與相關勞動訴訟程序之差異，是本文研究之所在，希經綜合專家學者之訪談，企能深入其中，惟囿於所學有限，國內相關訴訟程序之案例亦較少下，未來的研究應盡量找到更多的資訊，以比較每個個案的差異，豐富本項研究。
關鍵字：不當勞動行為，不當勞動行為裁決程序，勞動訴訟程序。
If workers can combine their power as a group, they will have equal right with their employers when both parties have dispute. Based on the principle of self-governance between employers and workers, government modified the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes in 2011 by following United States and Japan’s procedure of dealing with unfair labor practice. In this act, committee of unfair labor practice has the authority to handle and make decision when employers violate the rule of Labor Union Act Article 35, and Collective Agreement Act Article 6 Paragraph 1.
Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes is similar to Alternative Dispute Resolution in Common Law system. It provides another solving method for the dispute between employers and employees. Therefore, it will reduce the loading of dispute cases for the court house as well as provide an effective way for litigant to solve the problem. If the litigant is not satisfied with the decision, he or she can seek for the labor litigation procedure. Researchers believe that this act will protect workers’ right and stabilize relationship with their employers.
The legislation purpose of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes is to avoid employers to harm workers’ united right, negotiation right, and dispute right. The main characteristic of this act is to provide another effective method for solving dispute problems; however, it will need to be investigated by the court in the final step. Since our system of litigation is mainly adapted Civil law system, it is worth to examine the design of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes which is followed by the system from United States and Japan in unfair labor practice.
According to the table one, there are 85 dispute cases since the Committee of Unfair Labor Practice was established. Above all the cases, 30 cases have been made the judgment by the court (table two). This study mainly focused on examining the different between unfair labor practice procedures and competing labor litigation procedure through exist 85 cases. The contribution of this study is to build up the comparison database between unfair labor practice procedures and competing labor litigation procedure so it will provide more protection for the labors when they have dispute with their employers. The future study should try to find more cases in order to compare the difference of each individual case and broaden this study. |
