論日本試用期間解僱之法理與實務

Abstract

雖我國已將試用期間相關規定由成文法中刪除，但試用期間仍為勞動實務上之慣行，勞雇雙方均得藉此機會觀察與衡量對方是否合適。然而在試用期間內，雇主片面終止勞動契約──即解僱勞工時，是否仍應受到限制？該限制與正式任用後之解僱又有何異同？綜觀我國法院判決，試用期間解僱案例有欠缺客觀明確基準，使判決結果欠缺可預測性之問題，故本文參考日本之法制度與實務落實情形，嘗試提供我國實務一個可能的方向。 本文首先探討日本「解僱權濫用法理」之發展軌跡，再透過判決的歸納分析，觀察該法理於實務上之應用情形。其次整理試用期間法律關係與判斷基準由開始發展直至理論趨於統一之過程，並以與前揭一般正式任用後解僱案例相同之歸納方式，觀察試用期間中「保留之解約權」於實務之適用情形。最後，比較上述觀察結果，分析行使「解僱權」及「保留之解約權」時，法院之審查密度與特徵，並就此提出對我國參考適用之建議。

Though the legal rules about probationary period has been deleted from the labour code for a couple of years, the agreements of the period is still common in our country, since both employers and employees could have the chance to observe and determine whether they suit each other or not. But here comes the question: do the employers still have to obey the restrictions on dismissal during the period, and how do the restrictions differ from those after the period? In the case of dismissal, our courts tend to determine it without a clear and objective standard, thus lead to an unpredictable conclusion. By analysing the practical judgments of dismissal in Japan, I try to find out some splutions to this problem. First I will figure out how the ‘legal theories on the abuse of dismissal’ developed in Japan throughout the years. By observing the practical applications of this principle in judgements, I try to generalize some conclusions about the cases of dismissal during and after the probationary period and compared them in several ways, in order to figure out the problems mentioned above. Finally, I will conclude these obseravtions, focus especially on the intensity of judicial review in each case, try to propose the amendment for the practical standards of dismissal during probationary period in my state.