| 摘要: | 憲法第十五條規定人民之生存權應予保障，同法第一五五條明定：「國家為謀社會福利，應實施社會保險制度。人民之老弱殘廢，無力生活，及受非常災害者，國家應予以適當之扶助與救濟。」、及勞基法第五十九條保障職災勞工及其家屬生存之權法規，本件案例之勞動訴訟一審法官經驗不足，因我國並無專責法院，僅為勞工法庭，又藉助民事訴訟程序，反而對於相關勞工法規不甚熟稔，承辦法官大多職業法官，熟稔普通法律程序，至於專業性法律比較不熟悉，例如職業災害勞資訴訟係採無過失責任，被害勞工無須舉證，但本件援引民事訴訟程序進行者，竟需勞工舉證證明自己有受害之證據，顯然與勞動法規規定相左，因而需加強一些專業知能才能勝任。
顯然國家或立法者實具有責無旁貸的保護及立法義務。倘若立法者無正當
理由而不履行該作為義務者，則無疑地實為「立法怠惰」。「立法怠惰」之類型分為「立法之絕對不作為」與「立法之相對不作為」，前者係指立法機關違反明示之立法義務，怠於為立法行為；後者係指立法內容、手續、範圍等不備或不公正之立法不作為，是指對既存法律請求除去其違憲性而言。就我國職災補償制度而觀，並非未有立法，只是其制度、立法設計不當，造成職災補償制度之職災勞工及其家屬生存權保障意旨無法落實、並長久漠視此一不公正狀態而未思改善職災補償制度之設計與修法，實有「立法相對不作為」的違憲疑慮。
進而言之，最初職災補償之設置，在於保障職災勞工及其家屬之生存權而來。即是正視產業對於勞資糾紛如職業災害之不可避免性而對於受到「與工作有關傷害」之受僱人，提供即時有效之現金工資給付、醫療照護及勞動力重建措施的制度；甚而以社會保險方式落實職災補償制度保障生存權之意涵，使受雇人及其扶養之家屬不致陷入貧困之境，造成社會問題。職災補償之宗旨並非在於對雇主加以制裁或課以責任，而是維護職災勞工及其家屬的生存權，並保存或重建個人及社會的勞動力。
總之本文中職業災害勞工因勞動檢查員違法疏失不實檢查所製作報告造成勞工損害，以公務員違法或怠惰造成人民損失，適用國家賠償法規定，抑或對於勞動訴訟程序規定不明確時，亦透過大法官解釋之釋明，使得勞工權益保障益加完善，甚且引用犯罪被害人保護制度方式，由國家先行貼補給付勞工損失，再由國家以公權力介入向被告請求賠償，因法律扶助制度於我國目前實施不彰，需有一定條件資格，造成弱勢勞工求助無門，變成一個勞動訴訟遊民。
Article 15 of the Constitution stipulates that the people's right to life should be guaranteed, and Article 155 of the same law states: "In order to seek social welfare, the state should implement the social insurance system and Article 59 of the Labour-Based Law to protect workers and workers Legislation on the right to survival of family embers. The judges of the first instance of the labor lawsuit in this case have insufficient experience. Because China does not have a special court, it is only a labor court. It also uses civil litigation procedures. Instead, it is not familiar with relevant labor regulations. Ordinary legal procedures, as for professional laws, are relatively unfamiliar. For example, occupational disaster labor lawsuits are based on no fault liability, and the victims do not need to provide evidence. However, the civil law proceedings are invoked in this document, and the workers need to provide evidence to prove that they have been injured. The labor laws and regulations are contrary to each other, so it is necessary to strengthen some professional knowledge to be competent.
Obviously the state or legislators have the duty to protect and legislate. If the legislator has no justification Those who do not fulfil their obligations as reasons are undoubtedly "legislative laziness." The types of "legislative laziness" are divided into "absolute inaction of legislation" and "relative inaction of legislation". The former means that the legislature violates the express legislative obligations and is lax into acts of legislation; the latter means the legislative content, procedures, scope, etc. Or unfair legislative inaction refers to the removal of unconstitutionality of existing legal requests. From the perspective of China’s occupational disaster compensation system, it is not that there is no legislation, but that its system and legislation are not properly designed, resulting in the inability of the protection of the right to survival of occupational disaster workers and their families in the occupational disaster compensation system, and long disregard of this unjust state. Without designing and revising the design of the compensation system for occupational disasters, there are indeed unconstitutional concerns about "relatively ineffective legislation".
In addition, the initial occupational disaster compensation was set up to protect the survival rights of occupational workers and their families. It is a system that squarely faces the inevitability of industrial disputes such as occupational disasters and provides employees with "work-related injuries" with immediate and effective cash wages, medical care, and labor reconstruction measures; even social insurance Implementing the meaning of the occupational disaster compensation system to guarantee the right to subsistence prevents employees and their dependents from falling into poverty and causes social problems. The purpose of occupational disaster compensation is not to impose sanctions or impose responsibilities on employers, but to safeguard the survival rights of occupational workers and their families, and to preserve or rebuild personal and social labor.
In short, the occupational disaster labor caused by the labor inspector’s illegal negligence and false reports caused labor damage, and civil servants’ illegal or lazy people’s losses. The provisions of the National Compensation Law apply, or the labor litigation procedures are not clear The interpretation explained by the judge makes the protection of labor rights more and more perfect, even citing the protection system of crime victims, the state first subsidizes and compensates for labor losses, and then the state intervenes with public power to request compensation from the defendant, because the legal aid system is currently in China. Unsatisfactory implementation requires certain qualifications, resulting in vulnerable workers who have nowhere to turn for help and become a labor litigant. |
