法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
複數工會團體協商代表制之法律問題探討-以美日韓法制為線索(Research on legal issues of collective agreement representation of plural labor unions — take the United States, Japan and Korea law systems as a clue)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 張義德
出版日期: 2018.04
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 29 卷 第 4 期/117-167 頁
頁  數: 51 點閱次數: 1780
下載點數: 204 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 東吳大學 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 團體協約法第 6 條複數工會團體協商代表協商窗口單一化團體協商資格公正代表義務團體協商權勞動基本權
中文摘要: 我國在 2011 年施行勞動三法修正後,解除了原本的工會一元化限制,從而勞工除了可以加入企業工會外,也可加入存在於企業外部的產業工會或職業工會。不過,在如此複數工會併存的狀態下,應如何順利地進行團體協商乃為重要的課題。是以,為了強化協商力量及促進勞資雙方的協商意願,團體協約法修正條文第 6 條第 4 項規定了推選或分配協商代表之程序,並於同條第 3 項規定產業工會或職業工會必須取得協商資格作為其前提。
然而,如此規範的意義為何?是否妥當?在運作上可能發生之問題為何?在與美、日、韓三國的法制進行比較後,本文發現此程序有過度限縮產職業工會及其會員的團體協商權,甚至是團結權的爭議存在。是以,建議刪除對產、職業工會的協商資格限制以及由雇主決定是否要求複數工會產生協商代表之步驟,而由工會自主決定。此外,應明文規定團體協商代表負有公正代表義務以保障被代表之工會及其會員的權益。
希望在如此的修正之下,可以達成勞資自治以及團體協約法修正條文第 1 條所謂的「穩定勞動關係,促進勞資和諧、保障勞資權益」之立法目的。
英文關鍵詞: article 6 of Collective Agreement Actmultiple labor unionsrepresentative of collective agreement bargainingintegrate the person in chargebargaining qualificationduty of fair representationright to collective bargainingbasic labor rights
英文摘要: The single-labor union rule has been broken after the labor union Act, the collective agreement act, and the Act for settlement of Labor-Management Disputes (so-called the three basic labor laws in Taiwan) amendments enacted since 2011. From then on, employees can not only take part in the enterprise labor union but also be able to join industrial unions and trade unions. However, under the status of plural labor unions operating, how to make the collective bargaining process work smoothly becomes a crucial issue. Therefore, in order to strengthen the power of bargaining and to enhance the will to bargain of both parties, article 6, section 4 of Collective Agreement Act has been revised to clarify the electoral system and the distribution process of deciding bargaining representative. Furthermore, according to the same article, section 3, here comes a prerequisite that the industrial union and the trade union should get the bargaining qualification. Nevertheless, what is the meaning of this legal norm? Is it appropriate? And what are the problems might encounter during its operation?
By comparing the legal systems of the United States, Japan and Korea, this article found the legal process mentioned above might pose an inappropriate restriction on the right to collective bargaining of industrial unions, trade unions and their members, and even cause a violation to the right to organize. Hence, this article suggests to cancel the restriction of bargaining qualification and make the employers decide whether to make the electoral rules of deciding the representative from plural unions or not. Besides, it shall expressly provide the duty of fair representation in order to ensure the rights and interests of the represented unions and members.Hope by this adjustment, could make a step forward to reach laborcapital autonomy and to fulfill the goal of article 1, the amendment Collective Agreement Act, to stabilize labor relations, promote labor-management harmony, and protect rights and interests for the labor and the management
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、美國法中的複數工會團體協商代表制
  一、適當協商單位與協商代表工會之產生
  二、排他性協商代表制
  三、公正代表義務
參、日本法中的複數工會團體協商制
  一、複數工會主義之採用
  二、在複數工會併存下的誠實協商與雇主的中立保持義務
  (一)判例法理之形成
  (二)判例法理之修正
  (三)判例法理之發展
  三、限制少數工會團體協商權之議論
  四、工會的協商態度與公正代表義務
肆、韓國法中的複數工會團體協商代表制
  一、關於複數工會之法制變遷
  二、協商窗口單一化制度
  (一)協商窗口單一化制度之形成與發展
  (二)協商窗口單一化制度之內容
  (三)協商窗口單一化制度之違憲爭議
  (四)韓國憲法法院決定
  三、公正代表義務
  (一)公正代表義務之內容
  (二)公正代表義務之相對人
  (三)對於違反公正代表義務之救濟
  (四)與不當勞動行為制度間之關係
伍、對於我國法制之探討
  一、我國對於複數工會併存時之團體協商規範
  二、美、日、韓之複數工會團體協商制度特徵及對於我國法制之影響
  三、複數工會併存時之協商代表產生程序相關爭議
  (一)雇主得決定是否分別協商之爭議
  (二)推選團體協商代表之爭議
  (三)依會員人數比例分配產生協商代表之爭議
  (四)小結
  四、協商資格與複數工會併存時之協商代表產生程序之關係與爭議
陸、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
張義德,複數工會團體協商代表制之法律問題探討-以美日韓法制為線索,東吳法律學報,第 29 卷 第 4 期,117-167 頁,2018年04月。
返回功能列