法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
從美國吹哨者保護法制談我國立法方向(How to Enact Whistleblower Protection Laws in Taiwan-Based on the US Federal Mode)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 陳瑞仁
出版日期: 2019.01
刊登出處: 台灣/法學叢刊第 64 卷 第 1 期/29-74 頁
頁  數: 46 點閱次數: 1150
下載點數: 184 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳瑞仁
關 鍵 詞: 吹哨揭弊公部門私部門特別顧問勞動部長舉證責任具名國家機密營業秘密不利人事措施檢舉獎金法庭之友
中文摘要: 美國聯邦雖然在公部門與私部門都有吹哨者保護之法律,但均無所謂「吹哨者保護法」之獨立法規。私部門規定在個別單行法中之幾個條文,公部門也都是包裝在提高政府效能之法案內。
美國所謂公部門揭弊,是指揭弊者本人是公務員,其所揭發者是公務機關或其他公務員之弊端;而所謂私部門揭弊,是指私人企業之員工揭發其所任職的企業或其他員工之違法行為。所以基本上,美國之揭弊者係指「內部人」檢舉而不是一般人檢舉(除非法律另有規定,例如涉及檢舉獎金之某些金融法規)。
至於對吹哨者之保護,不論公私部門,都是集中在「禁止對揭弊者採取不利之人事措施」,違反者要負民事、行政裁罰責任甚或刑事責任。其民事責任最大的特色就在於舉證責任之轉換,公務員或受雇人只要「釋明」其被採不利人事措施是因為揭弊,其任職機關或雇主就必須以「明白可信之證據」來證明「縱無揭弊行為,其仍會採相同之不利人事措施」,始能免責。
受理機關方面,可分為「受理吹哨者揭弊之機關」與「受理遭報復之揭弊者的申訴之機關」二部分。公部門有一專責機關是「特別顧問辦公室」,但其並無「程序獨占」之地位。私部門之「受理揭弊機關」並沒有專責機關,基本上可以向任何人員或機關揭弊,而「受理遭報復之揭弊者的申訴之機關」則是勞動部部長。
本文第一部分探索美國聯邦法制演化之經過,第二部分探討將美國吹哨者模式引進我國時所面臨的本土化問題。
英文關鍵詞: Whistleblower ProtectionSpecial CounselSecretary of LaborBurden of ProofUnfavorable Personnel ActionCSRAWPAWPEAMSPBCorrective ActionIndividual Right of ActionAmicus Curiae BriefsSOXDodd-FrankProhibited Personnel Practices
英文摘要: There is no single and independent Act in US federal codes regulating all kinds of whistleblower protections, either in public or private sector. Although there are quite a few rules concerning it scattering in different laws.
The whistleblowers in public sector are government employees who disclose crimes or other misconducts happened inside the government. And the whistleblowers in private sector are employees who disclose crimes or other misconducts happened inside their workplaces. Basically, only internal informants are protected, unless the law concerned stipulates otherwise.
The protections provided by laws focus on “job keeping and working condition restoration”, rather than personal safety, which is the concern of witness protection law. The employee only needs to show by prima facie that his disclosure (whistle-blowing) was a contributory factor of the reprisal, then the burden of proof shifts to the employer, who must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the disclosure.
Disclosures must be made to one of the persons or institutions designated by the law concerned. And the complaint of retaliation should also be made to the designated persons or institutions, such as the Special Counsel in public sector or the Secretary of Labor in private sector.
The first part of this article shall explore the evolution of whistleblower protections under US federal laws. The second part shall discuss the issues of localizing the US model in Taiwan.
目  次: 壹、美國吹哨者保護法之濫觴
貳、聯邦調查局人員、情報人員與軍人吹哨保護之分離發展
參、美國聯邦私部門吹哨者保護之實體與程序規定-以消費者保護法為例
肆、美國州法的一些啟示
伍、美國聯邦法下揭弊與洩密罪間之關係
陸、我國現行法下之吹哨者保護規定
柒、我國法院對現行法之實務作法
捌、我國立法面臨的選擇
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
陳瑞仁,從美國吹哨者保護法制談我國立法方向,法學叢刊,第 64 卷 第 1 期,29-74 頁,2019年01月。
返回功能列