| 摘要: | 近年來可從我國新聞不停的看到有關罷工事件的新聞，有關罷工事件落幕後，雇主與勞工、工會間的官司新聞亦頻頻成為焦點。對雇主而言，常以對勞工「秋後算帳」以恫嚇工會發起罷工、勞工參與罷工運動達到勞工減少與其談判、協商更優的勞動條件及減少罷工的發起即等同於減少其將因罷工之發起而產生的經濟損失；對勞工而言，當工會所匯聚的多數勞工心聲不被雇主正視，甚至打壓，發起罷工運動將會是工會、勞工所擁有保障自己的最後手段。
本文第二章會先從多數各國罷工運動發展史及相關背景探討起，找出推動勞工權益發展背後的成因，並留以後續作為對比我國、日本及中國之發展史及相關背景成因，分析是否有不同，其源由為何？
第三章將是本文之重點，本文將會對我國對合法罷工運動法律要件進行拆解，先瞭解我國為何在罷工運動上有諸多爭論，探尋問題的根源，針對現有的法律規定所造成法律上適用的漏洞，探討其中的解決方案，以達到我國對勞工整體性的保障。同時在第三章，本文亦將兼論時常伴隨罷工運動併同發生的「預告制度之設置問題」、「糾察行為」正當性問題以及有關「必要服務條款」簽訂等相關爭議一併做探討，分析我國是否適合適用各制度以及設置制度妥當性的探討。
第四章，從我國鄰近國家中挑選出日本及中國兩國，從兩國不同罷工制度的發展背景做介紹，並從中挑出相同相異之處，研究及分析是否有該國特殊之成因、是否有我國能藉以進取之處。
結論部分，本文藉由一路之撰寫脈絡，整理出本文所涉及有關罷工運動合法性判斷基準，釐清在我國有關罷工運動合法性的判斷基準及能藉由本文白話性的撰寫方式，點出我國法制上仍存在的缺失，使大眾能對罷工運動有更深入更明白的理解，亦希望能作為日後推動大眾關注仍不足之處。
In recent years, our country's news has been rife with reports of strike events, and post-strike legal battles between employers and labor unions have increasingly become a focal point. For employers, there is a tendency to use the threat of settling scores with workers after the fact, aiming to deter union-initiated strikes. The participation of workers in strike movements is viewed as a means to reduce labor force numbers available for negotiation, thereby compelling them to accept less favorable labor conditions and reducing the frequency of strikes, which, in turn, minimizes potential economic losses resulting from strikes. On the other hand, for workers, when the collective voice represented by the union is ignored or suppressed by employers, initiating a strike becomes the ultimate means for unions and workers to secure their rights.
The second chapter of this paper will begin by examining the historical development of strike movements in various countries and the associated background, aiming to identify the underlying reasons driving the advancement of labor rights. This will serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of the historical development and backgrounds of strike movements in our country, Japan, and China, to investigate differences and their underlying causes.
The third chapter will be the focal point of this paper. It will involve a dissection of the legal requirements for legitimate strike movements in our country. The objective is to comprehend the controversies surrounding strike movements in our country, identify the root causes of these issues, explore the legal loopholes resulting from existing legal provisions, and discuss potential solutions. The aim is to enhance the overall protection of labor rights in our country. Additionally, within the third chapter, this paper will also explore issues often accompanying strike movements, such as the establishment of the "notification system," the legitimacy of "picketing behavior," and controversies related to the signing of "essential service clauses." It will analyze whether our country is suitable for applying these systems and engage in discussions on the appropriateness of their implementation.
In the fourth chapter, the paper will select Japan and China from neighboring countries and introduce the development backgrounds of their different strike systems. It will analyze the similarities and differences between these systems, studying whether there are unique factors in those countries and whether there are areas where our country could make progress.
The conclusion will summarize the discourse throughout this paper and outline the criteria used to judge the legitimacy of strike movements. It aims to clarify the standards for assessing the legitimacy of strike movements in our country and, through a straightforward writing style, highlight the existing shortcomings in our legal system. The goal is to provide the public with a deeper and clearer understanding of strike movements and to serve as a platform for future efforts to address the existing inadequacies. |
