請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/83484
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王能君(Neng-Chun Wang) | |
dc.contributor.advisor | 王能君(Neng-Chun Wang | nwang@ntu.edu.tw | ), | |
dc.contributor.author | Pin-Hsuan Tseng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 曾品瑄 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T21:08:38Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-09-13 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-06 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻(依作者姓氏筆畫排列) 一、專書 William B. Gould(著),焦興鎧(譯)(1996),《美國勞工法入門》,國立編譯館。 黃越欽(著),黃鼎佑(增修)(2015),《勞動法新論》,五版,翰蘆。 蔡炯燉、張鑫隆合著(2007),《美日勞資爭議行法制之研究》,行政院勞工委員會。 黃程貫(2001),《勞動法》,修訂再版,國立空中大學。 楊通軒(2019),《集體勞工法─理論與實務》,六版,五南。 二、 期刊論文 邱羽凡(2009),〈勞動爭議行為之意義及其與罷工糾察之關係〉,《全國律師》,13卷2期,頁53-72。 邱羽凡(2019),〈論罷工糾察界限與糾察手段之合法性〉,《中原財經法學》,43期,頁87-154。 焦興鎧(1995),〈雇主雇用罷工替代者在美國所引起之勞工法爭議〉,《歐美研究》,25卷2期,頁57-100。 黃瑞明(2004),〈落後的罷工法制,反動的意識形態〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,107期,頁37-45。 劉士豪(2016),〈勞動三法修正後罷工規範之研究〉,《國立中正大學法學集刊》,51期,頁133-181。 鄭津津(2006),〈美國勞資爭議行為正當性之探討〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》,60期,頁75-109。 三、 學位論文 李桃(2009),《2002年美西碼頭勞資爭議之研究》,國?中正大學?工研究所碩士論文(未出版),嘉義。 四、 政府刊物 立法院公報處(2003),〈立法院第5屆第3會期衛生環境及社會福利委員會第7次全體委員會會議紀錄〉,《立法院公報》,92卷18期。 立法院公報處(2004),〈立法院第5屆第5會期第20次會議紀錄〉,《立法院公報》,93卷33期。 勞動部(2022),《全國勞工工會組織率》,載於:https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/statis/jspProxy.aspx?sys=220&ym=9700&ymt=11103&kind=21&type=1&funid=q05014&cycle=42&outmode=0&&compmode=0&outkind=11&fldlst=1111&rdm=R100029。 勞動部(2020),《罷工及停工》,載於:https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/html/nat/109/109008%E8%A1%A88-2.pdf。 英文文獻(依英文字母排序) 期刊論文 Abel, R. M. (1957). An extension of the lockout by non-struck members of multi-employer association. American University Law Review, 6(2), 106-110. Adamson, M. M. (1975). Labor law--the lockout loophole in 29 u.s.c. 158(d)(3). Emory Law Journal, 24(2), 495-510. Baird, J. (1970). Lockout law: The supreme court and the nlrb. George Washington Law Review, 38(3), 396-430. Bennett, W. R. (1952). The multi-employer lockout. Utah Law Review, 3(1), 122-129. Berk, M. D. (1966). The bargaining lockout: The great equalizer. UCLA Law Review, 13(2), 381-405. Darkey, K. L. (1956). Multi-employer bargaining and the lockout the quest for equality. Rocky Mountain Law Review, 29(1), 83-101. Dolin, S. L. (1987). Lockouts in evolutionary perspective: The changing balance of power in american industrial relations. Vermont Law Review, 12(2), 335-428. Douglas, S. N. (1959-1960). Legality of the Single Employer Lockout. Intramural Law Review of New York University, 15, 263-279. Duvin, R. P. (1965). Bargaining lockout: An impatient warrior. Notre Dame Lawyer, 40(2), 137-157. Epstein, D. G. (1966). Comment, Impasse in Collective Bargaining. Texas Law Review, 44, 769-784. Extending the multi-employer lockout to less than formal units. (1967). Virginia Law Review, 53(5), 1189-1208. Feldesman, W., & Koretz, R. F. (1966). Lockouts. Boston University Law Review, 46(3), 329-342. Freilicher, F. (1968). The supportive lockout. Syracuse Law Review, 19(3), 599-617. Hawkins, J. (1965). Legality of the lockout extended. Syracuse Law Review, 17(1), 66-77. Hines, S. (1972). Labor law an employer cannot continue business operations by hiring temporary employees during bargaining lockout inland trucking co. v. nlrb. Texas Tech Law Review, 3(2), 401-408. Janes, B. C. (1975). Illusion of permanency for mackay doctrine replacement workers. Texas Law Review, 54(1), 126-150. Koretz, R. F. (1953). Legality of the lockout. Syracuse Law Review, 4(2), 251-273. Koretz, R. F. (1956). The lockout revisited. Syracuse Law Review, 7(2), 263-272. Koretz, R. F. (1957). The multi-employer lockout vindicated. Syracuse Law Review, 9(1), 40-45. Labor law: Bargaining lockout held lawful absent interference with protected rights or proscribed purpose. (1966). Duke Law Journal, 1966(1), 261-271. Labor law use of temporary replacements in bargaining lockout held legally Justified. (1974). Memphis State University Law Review, 4(3), 629-635. LeRoy, M. H. (1996). Lockouts involving replacement workers: An empirical public policy analysis and proposal to balance economic weapons under the nlra. Washington University Law Quarterly, 74(4), 981-1060. Lewis, W. A. (1967). Lockout the other dimension. Monthly Labor Review, 90(8), 1-7. Littler, R. (1952). The Right to Lockout. American Bar Association. Section of Labor Relations Law. Proceedings., 1952, 4-18. Lockout in multi-employer bargaining context limited to defensive use. (1962). New York University Law Review, 37(6), 1152-1157. McMillin, B. S. (1959). The bargaining or economic lockout: Is it an unfair labor practice under the taft-hartley act. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 21(1), 107-122. Meltzer, B. D. (1956). Single employer and multi-employer lockouts under the taft-hartley act. University of Chicago Law Review, 24(1), 70-97. Meltzer, B. D. (1961). Lockouts under the lmra: New shadows on an old terrain. University of Chicago Law Review, 28(4), 614-628. Meltzer, B. D. (1965). The Lockout Cases. Supreme Court Review, 1965, 87-118. Mills, R. A. (1965). American ship building co. v. nlrb: The legality of the bargaining lockout. Dickinson Law Review, 70(1), 81-97. Merryman, J. (1965). Resurrection of the bargaining lockout and the role of the nrlb. George Washington Law Review, 34(1), 134-149 Nierman, R. H. (1968). The offensive lockout. California Western Law Review, 4(1), 148-156. Oberer, W. E. (1966). Lockouts and the Law The Impact of American Ship Building and Brown Food. Cornell Law Review, 51, 193-230. O'Brien, L. J. (1955). Right to lock-out where union strikes one member of bargaining association. Georgetown Law Journal, 43(3), 426-436. Patrick, H. (1972). The lockout: From past to future. Albany Law Review, 36(4), 711-726. Ray, D. E., & Cameron, C. (2016). Revisiting the offensive bargaining lockout on the fiftieth anniversary of american ship building company v. nlrb. ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 31(2), 325-362. Rosen, S. (1970). The evolution of the lockout. Suffolk University Law Review, 4(2), 267-296. Shawe, E. K. (1966). The regenerated status of the employer's lockout: comment on american ship building. New York University Law Review, 41(6), 1124-1137. Souser, K. (1967). The anachronistic term lockout. Business Lawyer (ABA), 23(1), 264-266. The metaphysics of the multiemployer lockout. (1968). Georgetown Law Journal, 56(3), 584-596. The multiemployer lockout. (1953). University of Chicago Law Review, 20(2), 299-303. The offensive bargaining lockout. (1966). Virginia Law Review, 52(3), 464-485. Truschke, J. R. (1966). Labor law use of lockout and temporary employees by multi-employer bargaining group after whipsaw strike not unfair labor practice. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 43(1), 118-122. Unlocking the lockout american ship bldg. v. nlrb. (1966). Maryland Law Review, 26(1), 69-78. Verrochi, P. C. (1987). Labor law lockout it is not violation of section 8(a)(1) or (3) of the national labor relations act for an employer to lockout and temporarily replace his union-represented employees solely as means of pressuring the union into settling contract dispute on terms favorable to the employer. Rutgers Law Journal, 18(4), 961-978. Wallenstein, J. H. (1965). Beefing-up the lockout. Southwestern Law Journal, 19(3), 622-631. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/83484 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 相對勞方之爭議行為,資方爭議手段在我國少有著墨。惟即便以保障勞方權益之目的為依歸,對於資方爭議行為的定義及其合法性界線,仍有探討與定義之必要性。因此,本研究聚焦在資方典型的爭議手段之鎖廠行為,並以美國作為觀察之對象。 本論文於第二章介紹美國對於鎖廠之定義及其類型,並於第三章論述鎖廠合法性之整體脈絡。奠基在對於美國勞動領域發展上,不同時期相異的政策方向與目標的觀察,進一步探討國家勞工關係局對於鎖廠合法性判斷的變化,並更為具體且細節性的聚焦於關鍵案例進行分析。 第四章則針對與鎖廠發動密切相關的附隨手段,亦即鎖廠後是否得以使用暫時性替代人力之議題進行討論。最後則在第五章中,回顧前述對於美國鎖廠法制的相關觀察,並提出本文之見解。 本論文希冀透過對於美國鎖廠法制發展的觀察,檢視我國法現行之法制度,並借鏡其鎖廠的發展脈絡與歷程,提出對我國未來修法方向值得參考之處。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Compared to the weapons that labors could legally use in labor-management confrontations, the legal weapons for employers to use during disputes were seldom well-discussed. However, to achieve the goal of balancing the power between labors and employers, making the clear definition and setting up the boundary of the use of legal acts that employers could take during disputes would be a need. This study would focus on the main weapon of employers, lockout, and observe the development of U.S. lockout. The definition of lockout and the types of lockout would be introduced in chapter 2. And in chapter 3, this study would analyze the history of the legality of lockout in the U.S. through different aspects. With the changing policy and the legislation, National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. supreme court had different judgements toward the legality of lockout. Also this study would scrutinize the facts of the leading cases, and analyze the context of lockout with all the details. In chapter 4, this study would take the discuss further to the issue of whether the replacement workers could be hired during the lockout. And finally in chapter 5, reviewing the development of lockout, including opinions of the U.S. supreme court, perspectives of National Labor Relations Board and comments of scholars, this study would propose the possible direction of legislation of lockout in the future based on the observation mentioned above. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T21:08:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0609202212144300.pdf: 3712435 bytes, checksum: df3352fdcebb8a772922c363005db268 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究方法 5 第三節 本文架構 6 第二章 美國鎖廠定義與類型 7 第一節 鎖廠的定義及源起 7 第一項 鎖廠的定義 7 第二項 鎖廠的源起 8 第三項 相關鎖廠案例 10 第二節 鎖廠的類型 11 第一項 鎖廠的分類 11 第二項 防禦性鎖廠與攻擊性鎖廠 15 第三項 單一雇主鎖廠與多邊雇主鎖廠 17 第四項 協商鎖廠 19 第五項 經濟性鎖廠 20 第三章 鎖廠合法性變遷與關鍵案例 25 第一節 鎖廠合法性的演變 25 第一項 1935年國家勞工關係法成立前的鎖廠合法性 25 第二項 1935年國家勞工關係法成立後的鎖廠合法性 26 第三項 NLRB對於鎖廠合法性的立場變遷 29 第四項 從關鍵案例觀察鎖廠合法性變遷 30 第二節 關鍵案例的探討 33 第一項 1952年Morand Bros. Beverage Co. v. N.L.R.B.案 33 第二項 1952年Davis Furniture Co. v. N.L.R.B.案 35 第一款 法院及NLRB見解 35 第二款 學者評析 36 第三款 本文見解 41 第三項 1957年NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local Union案 43 第一款 法院及NLRB見解 44 第二款 學者評析 45 第三款 本文見解 48 第四項 1965年NLRB v. Brown Food Store案 49 第一款 法院及NLRB見解 50 第二款 學者評析 53 第三款 本文見解 55 第五項 1965年American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB案 56 第一款 法院及NLRB見解 57 第二款 學者評析 58 第三款 本文見解 61 第六項 小結 62 第四章 鎖廠發動限制及附隨替代人力使用之分析 64 第一節 鎖廠發動的限制 64 第一項 Darling & Co.案 64 第二項 鎖廠發動限制 66 第一款 成文法規限制 66 第二款 契約上限制 68 第三款 雇主的不當動機 68 第四款 誠信協商 69 第二節 鎖廠後替代人力使用之合法性 74 第一項 鎖廠後使用替代人力之案例發展 75 第一款 Brown案後鎖廠附隨替代人力使用之合法性發展 75 第二款 Harter Equipment, Inc.案後鎖廠附隨替代人力使用之發展 79 第二項 鎖廠後使用替代人力之分析 81 第五章 美國鎖廠法制之觀察及對我國法之啟示 85 第一節 美國鎖廠法制之觀察 85 第二節 美國鎖廠法制對我國法之啟示 86 第三節 結論 89 參考文獻 92 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 美國鎖廠法制發展之研究──兼論對我國法之啟示 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study on the Development of U.S. Lockout: Inspiration for Taiwan’s Legal System | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張義德(I-Te Chang),傅柏翔(Bo-Shone Fu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 勞資爭議,資方爭議行為,鎖廠,國家勞工關係局,替代人力, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | labor-management confrontations,labor disputes,lockout,National Labor Relations Board,replacement workers, | en |
dc.relation.page | 97 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203188 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 科際整合法律學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0609202212144300.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.63 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。