日本勞動法上支配介入行為歸責理論之研究—以近似代表雇主行使管理權之人理論為中心

Abstract

我國攸關集體勞資關係之工會法、團體協約法及勞資爭議處理法於2011年5月1日大幅修正及施行。其中，工會法第35條第1項明文禁止「雇主或代表雇主行使管理權之人」為不當勞動行為，以達成對工會之保護。 然而，屬於不當勞動行為類型之一的「支配介入」行為，其態樣十分多樣化，除雇主外，尚可能由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、其他工會會員及企業外之第三人等為支配介入之行為。因此，雇主以外之人所為之支配介入行為，是否應歸責於雇主即為問題。針對非屬代表雇主行使管理權之人，然具有相當管理權限，位於管理階層底端之「初階幹部」，日本學說及實務上發展出「近似代表雇主行使管理權之人」理論以資因應。我國裁決實務自2013年起引用日本法上「近似代表雇主行使管理權之人」理論，至今仍在部分裁決案件中以該理論認定支配介入行為之雇主責任，惟近年來亦有將該理論擴及一般員工行為並認定應歸責於雇主之案例，此運用是否恰當，不無疑問。另外，行政法院至今皆未曾於個案判斷時使用該理論，其理由為何，應值探討。 由於我國勞動法多有借鏡日本法之規定，且我國裁決委員會使用之「近似代表雇主行使管理權之人」理論係直接援引自日本法，因此本文擬借日本法上就「初階幹部」所為支配介入行為歸責理論之發展及文獻，尋找值得借鑒與反思之處。 於此前提下，本文將從我國及日本法上不當勞動行為之支配介入行為主體及雇主責任之制度規範、實務之運用等進行分析，探討是否可於我國法制基礎上，加以引用日本法之理論。並就我國法上「近似代表雇主行使管理權之人」之範圍及其所為支配介入行為應如何歸責之問題，提出本文之見解，以期充分保障勞工及工會之團結權。

On May 1, 2011, laws relevant to collective labor relations in Taiwan including the Labor Union Act, the Collective Agreements Act, and the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes, were all substantially amended and put into effect. Among them, Article 35(1) of the Labor Union Law expressly prohibits "employers or supervisory employees who represent the employer in exercising managerial authority" from committing labor misconduct in order to protect labor unions. However, it is noted that dominant intervention, a type of unfair labor practice, is very diverse and may be committed not only by employers, but also by supervisory employees who represent the employer in exercising managerial authority, persons similarly exercising managerial authority, ordinary employees, other labor union members, and third parties not part of the enterprise. It is questionable whether the employer should be held responsible for the acts of domination and/or intervention committed by persons other than the employer. The “persons similarly exercising managerial authority” theory has been developed both doctrinally and in practice in Japan to address the issue. This theory asserts that the behavior of a person who does not exercise management rights on behalf of the employer, but has considerable management authority and is at the bottom of the management hierarchy (a junior manager), can be considered to be domination and/or intervention under labor law. Taiwanese courts have recognized and utilized this theory in relevant cases since 2013. Nevertheless, in recent years, the theory has been extended to the behavior of ordinary employees in several cases, resulting in employers being held responsible for such behavior. In addition, the Administrative Court has not used the doctrine in judging cases so far. Reasons for the Administrative Court’s lack of admission of the theory should also be explored. Since many provisions in our labor law referenced Japanese law in their drafting, and the Board for Decision on the Unfair Labor Practices quoted the “persons similarly exercising managerial authority” theory directly from Japanese law, this article intends to draw on the development and literature on the attribution of dominant intervention by "junior managers" to employer responsibility in Japanese law to find points for reference and reflection. On this premise, this thesis will analyze the regulations and practical application involving the subject of domination and/or intervention and its relation to employer responsibility both in our country and Japanese law, and explore whether the Japanese theory can be applied to cases in our country on the basis of our legal system. The thesis will also discuss the scope of “persons similarly exercising managerial authority” and how to allocate responsibility for their acts of dominant intervention under our laws, in order to fully protect the union rights of employees and labor unions.