法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
不當勞動行為責任之歸屬與績效考核不利益待遇之成立-評行政院勞工委員會 102 年勞裁字第 6 號不當勞動行為裁決決定(Comments on the (102) Lao-Su no.6 Decision Rendered by the Council of Labor Affairs)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 張義德
出版日期: 2015.07
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 27 卷 第 1 期/165-215 頁
頁  數: 51 點閱次數: 631
下載點數: 204 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 張義德
關 鍵 詞: 不當勞動行為支配介入不利益待遇近似代表雇主行使管理權之人績效考核
中文摘要: 所謂的支配介入係指我國工會法第 35 條第 1 項第 5 款所定之由雇主或代表雇主行使管理權之人所為之不當影響、防礙或限制工會之成立、組織或活動之行為。不過,相對於其他不當勞動行為類型,支配介入之不當勞動行為的態樣極為多樣化且通常係由高層業務主管、代表雇主行使管理權之人、近似代表雇主行使管理權之人、一般員工、其他工會會員甚至是企業外之第三人等特定之個人所進行而未必可以說是雇主之行為。從而,在何種之情形下始得歸責於雇主?
又,雖然我國工會法第 36 條規定了會務假之法律依據,但工會幹部因會務假之故而影響績效考核之結果時,是否亦屬不利益待遇之不當勞動行為?
對於本案所涉及之上述問題,本文乃嘗試先整理我國目前之裁決決定與學說發展而突顯本號裁決決定之特徵後,再透過對於日本法上相關問題的介紹與分析,檢視本號裁決決定之妥當性,並作為我國工會法第 35 條第 1 項適用之參考,以期有效保障勞工與工會之團結權。
英文關鍵詞: unfair labor practicedomination or interferencedisadvantageous treatmenta person resembling supervisory employee who represent the employer in exercising the managerial authorityjob-performance evaluation
英文摘要: According to Article 35, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 5 of the Labor Union Act, the so called “domination or interference practices” refers to an employer or supervisory employees who represent the employer in exercising the managerial authority improperly influence, impede or restrict the establishment, organization or activities of labor union. However, compare with other unfair labor practices, domination or interference practices can be conducted in various forms. The conductors of domination or interference practices are not particularly the employers, it could be a certain person like supervisor, supervisory employee who represent the employer in exercising the managerial authority, a person resembling supervisory employee who represent the employer in exercising the managerial authority, employee, other labor union member, even an external third party. Therefore, under what kind of circumstances should an employer take the responsibilities?
Furthermore, based on Article 36 of the Labor Union Act, the cadre members of a labor union are allowed to have official leaves to handle union affairs during their working hours; nevertheless, if the cadre members of a labor union get bad job-performance evaluation by taking official leaves, could we refer this to an unfair labor practice?
Now we are going to go through this case by organizing the current decisions on the Unfair Labor Practices in Taiwan and comparing with the development of theory to bring out the feature of this Decision, then examining the adequacy of this Decision by introducing and analyzing the related laws from Japanese Labor Union Act as a reference (for Article 35, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 5 of the Labor Union Act). By this article, I hope labors and labor unions could know this issue better and improve their solidarity rights.
目  次: 壹、事實概要
貳、裁決決定要旨
一、Y1 於 X 工會之會員大會前夕致電個別工會會員之行為及於會員大會當日至會場之行為是否構成工會法第 35 條第 1 項第 5 款?
二、Y 銀行將 X1 之 101 年度年終績效評核評定由 B 等降為 D 等並減發績效獎金之行為是否構成工會法第 35 條第 1 項第 1 款?
參、評譯
一、本件裁決決定之意義
二、我國之實務與學說見解
(一)相關裁決決定與法院判決
(二)學說概況
三、在日本法上對於相關問題之處理
(一)雇主利益代表者之範圍
(二)不當勞動行為責任之歸屬-以「初階幹部」之行為為中心
(三)績效考核不利益待遇之成立
四、對於本件裁決決定及我國相關規定之檢討
肆、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
張義德,不當勞動行為責任之歸屬與績效考核不利益待遇之成立-評行政院勞工委員會 102 年勞裁字第 6 號不當勞動行為裁決決定,東吳法律學報,第 27 卷 第 1 期,165-215 頁,2015年07月。
返回功能列