| 摘要: | 自2011年修訂之工會法、勞資爭議處理法及團體協約法迄今已逾10年，其中最為關鍵當屬工會法修訂的不當勞動行為禁止及增訂裁決做為不當勞動行為的救濟途徑最為重要，實務上也發展出檢視構成不當勞動行為的準則；而裁決委員會能否成為集體勞資關係有效之救濟制度，以確實保障勞工之團結權及爭議權，迅速排除不當勞動行為，回復集體勞資關係之正常運作，都有賴於法院對於裁決決定的態度。裁決決定雖由具勞動法令專業知識的學者、律師及實務工作者所作成，富有一定的彈性，但其認定事實、陳述推論及證據調查等，都可能在當事人起訴之下遭法院推翻，因此專家委員的判斷餘地內涵及法院審理界限即有探討的必要。
就裁決內容接軌後續的訴訟救濟，不服裁決決定的當事人可能提起行政訴訟，或同時也提起民事訴訟，除了裁決決定不被採納，或部分被採納外，行政訴訟審判所持的理由與民事訴訟判決常有見解歧異之處，實務曾批評，不服裁決決定的一方(通常是雇主)為了阻却裁決決定發生與確定判決同一效力，遂提起民事訴訟以確認僱傭關係不存在，此時會因為勞工已起訴請求確認僱傭關係存在之訴，法院則依民事訴訟法第253條的同一事件而禁止重複起訴被駁回。
依勞資爭議處理法第48條及第50規定，裁決決定除被賦予「準司法」的地位外，當事人亦得避免損害擴大而主張保全處分，在「裁決決定經法院核定前」向法院聲請假扣押或假處分，然而在2020年勞動事件法施行後，大量的定暫時狀態處分裁定，使得裁決制度所涉民事、行政救濟程序更形複雜，有必要進一步釐清。
It has been more than 10 years since the revision of the “Trade Union Law”,the“Labor Dispute Settlement Law”,and the“Collective Bargaining Agreement Law”in 2011.The most important part of the revision is the prohibition of unfair labor practices and the additional rulings on remedies for the unfair labor practices, as shown in the revision of the “Trade Union Law”.In practice, the criterion for reviewing unfair labor practices has also been developed. The purpose of the ruling is to ensure protection of the right to organize and dispute,to quickly eliminate unfair labor practices, and to restore the normal operation of collective labor relations. Although the decision is made by scholars, lawyers, and practitioners with professional knowledge of labor laws, and it is flexible to a certain extent, the fact-finding, inferences, and evidence investigation may all be overturned by the court under the lawsuit of the parties. Therefore, it is necessary to further discuss the connotation and the standard established by the professionals.
Regarding the content of the ruling and the follow-up judicial remedies, the parties who are dissatisfied with the ruling decision may file an administrative lawsuit and a civil lawsuit at the same time. Besides the ruling is not adopted or partially adopted, the reasons for the administrative litigation trial often disagree with the civil litigation judgment. In practice, it has been criticized that the party (usually the employer) who is dissatisfied with the ruling decision would file a civil lawsuit to confirm that the employment relationship does not exist, in order to prevent the ruling decision from being made and taking effect. The lawsuit regarding the existence of the employment relationship would be dismissed by the court in accordance with Article 253 of the“Civil Procedure Code”, which prohibits repeated lawsuits for the same event.
According to Articles 48 and 50 of the“Labor Dispute Settlement Law”, not only the ruling decision is given the status of“quasi-judicial”, the party concerned may also seek a preservation measure to avoid further damage, including submitting the provisional attachment or provisional injunction to the court“before the decision is approved by the court”. However, after the implementation of the“Labor Incident Law”in 2020, a large number of judgments on temporary status sanctions have made the civil and administrative relief procedures involved in the judgment system more complicated, which is necessary to be further clarified. |
