大學自治與大學教師身分之保障—以「限期升等」與「教師評鑑」之爭議為核心

Abstract

大學法於民國94年12月28日全文修正公布後，我國各大學始得依據其中第19條規定作為法規範依據，於教師法第14條規定外另定不續聘或停聘教師之規定，經校務會議審議通過後實施，並納入聘約之中，而同次修正所定之大學法第21條第1項規定，要求大學應建立教師評鑑制度，並將之與教師之停聘、不續聘等相連結。自此，我國多數大學開始訂定所謂「限期升等條款」或「評鑑通過條款」，分別規定教師應於一定期限內升等，或遵期通過教師評鑑，否則大學即得以教師未於期限內完成升等，或未遵期通過評鑑為由，而對之為不續聘處分。前揭二條款之訂定與適用，後續引起了諸多實務上之爭議與討論，而本文將聚焦於我國大學受大學自治保障之人事自治權限，與大學教師個人之工作權保障之間，若產生衝突時，究竟應如何理解及處理，以及前揭二條款之訂定是否適法且合憲等問題。 首先，本文抽樣選出五所大學之法律學系，整理分析其關於大學教師升等、教師評鑑，以及前揭二條款之規定之內容為何，以了解前揭制度實際上如何運作。其次，本文藉由廣泛蒐集行政法院以大學教師升等、教師評鑑不通過為事由之實務判決，以進行內容分析，進一步呈現我國各大學辦理教師升等、教師評鑑，以及因違反前揭二條款而經不續聘處分之實務狀況，以作為本文後續進行實質合憲性檢驗之基礎。其後，本文將在第三章以大學自治與大學教師之工作權等基本權間之價值衝突作為切入點，探討大學法第19條規定之合憲性，以及該條規定與教師法第14條規定間，應如何適用之問題，並於第四章利用前揭各校相關規定之觀察結果，以及實務判決之分析結果作為基礎，進行前揭二條款之合憲性檢驗。 最後，本文於第五章提出研究結論，認為關於大學自治與教師工作權保障之衝突，立法者已經透過訂定教師法第14條規定，與大學法第19條、第21條規定，進行利益衡量與價值取捨，而本文認為以利益衡平原則及文義解釋之觀點出發，應認大學另訂不續聘事由如本文前揭二條款者，仍需回歸教師法第14條第1項第14款後段規定，判斷教師違反條款之情形是否已達情節重大，已達情節重大者，大學始得對教師為不續聘。而關於教師升等之核心事項，諸如：外審委員之選任方式、人數，以及通過外審之標準等，本文認為各校之規定差異過大，可能導致升等決定之正確性與可信性尚有不足之處，且外審委員之審查意見通常過於抽象或簡略，亦導致大學教師難以獲得救濟；反觀教師評鑑之辦理，各校對於通過評鑑之要求較為具體明確，亦較少發生爭議，且通過教師評鑑已表示教師之教學、研究、輔導等表現並未不能勝任工作，是在此情形之下，本文認為訂定限期升等條款之必要性尚有不足之處，並就本文之研究限制進行檢討與展望。

It was not until the full text of the University Act was amended and announced on December 28, 2005 could the universities in Taiwan, in addition to the provisions under Article 14 of the Teachers’ Act, formulate separate stipulations for the suspension or refusal of reengagement of teachers and implement and provide the same in the contracts after being approved by the academic affairs meeting pursuant to Article 19 of the University Act. Among the above amendment, paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the University Act requires universities to establish the teacher review system as reference for issues such as suspension and refusal of reengagement of teachers. From then on, most universities in Taiwan started to formulate the so-called “upgrading-within-time-limit clause” or “passing-the-review clause,” which respectively requires teachers to, within certain time limit, upgrade or pass the teacher review. Under these clauses, the universities may refuse the reengagement as disciplinary measure based on the reason that the teachers fail to upgrade or pass the teacher review within certain time limit. The formulation and application of the above two clauses lead to various disputes and discussions in practice. This thesis focuses on how to comprehend and deal with the conflicts between the scopes of Taiwanese university’s human resource autonomy protected by university autonomy and the protection of university teachers’ personal right to work. In addition, this thesis also centers on whether the formulation of the above two clauses is lawful and constitutional or not. Firstly, this thesis selects five universities’ law schools by sampling and organizes and analyzes the contents of upgrading of university teachers, teacher review, and the above-mentioned two clauses of such law schools to understand how the above regulation systems actually function. Secondly, this thesis thoroughly collects the judgments rendered by the Administrative Courts on upgrading of university teachers and failure to pass teacher review, analyzes the contents of such judgments, and further presents how the universities in Taiwan handle teacher upgrading and teacher review as well as the actual situations of using refusal of the reengagement as disciplinary measure for violation of the above-mentioned two clauses. These become the basis for this thesis to examine the substantial constitutionality of the above-mentioned two clauses. Furthermore, in Chapter Three, this thesis, from the point of fundamental rights conflict between university autonomy and university teacher’s right to work, discusses the constitutionality of Article 19 of the University Act as well as the question about how to apply such article and Article 14 of the Teachers’ Act. In Chapter Four, this thesis examines the constitutionality of the above-mentioned two clauses based on the analysis results of the regulations of the five sampled universities and the judgments. Lastly, this thesis brings out the research conclusion that the legislators had already balanced the interests and values between university autonomy and university teacher’s right to work by enacting Article 14 of the Teachers’ Act and Articles 19 and 21 of the University Act. This thesis holds that, from the viewpoint of putting the harmony principal and grammatical interpretation into practice, when universities formulate separate stipulations for the refusal of reengagement such as the above-mentioned two clauses, the universities shall decide whether the violation constitutes a serious offence pursuant to sub-paragraph 14, paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Teachers’ Act. Only when the violation constitutes a serious offence can the universities refuse to reengage applicable teachers. As to the core matters of teacher upgrading, such as the election method and the number of external review committee members and the standards of passing the external review, this thesis finds that there are massive differences among relevant regulations of the universities, which might lead to insufficient accuracy and credibility of the upgrading decision. In addition, the review opinions of the external review committee members are usually too abstract or too simple, which make it difficult for university teachers to be granted with remedy. As for teacher review, since the requirements for passing the review are rather concrete and clear, there are fewer disputes. Moreover, passing the teacher review means that the teacher is not incompetent to teach, research, mentor, or do other performances. Thus, this thesis holds that there is lack of necessity to formulate the “upgrading-within-time-limit clause.” This thesis also includes the reflection and the prospect of the limits of the research concerned.