臺灣及日本身心障礙者僱用法制之比較法研究

Abstract

身心障礙者長期處於低勞動參與率、高失業率、低薪的勞動困境中。為解決此勞動困境，臺灣於1990年制定定額進用制度，並於2014年通過身心障礙者權利公約施行法，惟公約中重要之「合理調整義務」，迄今遲未立法。相較於臺灣，日本於1960年制定僱用率制度，並於2007年批准身心障礙者權利公約、2011年完成相關法律的整備，將合理調整義務明確立法，其立法及實施之經驗，值得臺灣借鏡。因此，本論文除說明身心障礙者權利公約之合理調整與工作權內涵，並以定額進用制度與合理調整義務為中心，分別討論臺灣及日本身心障礙者僱用法制之內涵，最後進行比較。 比較兩國法制後，本論文認為，在定額進用制度方面，臺灣可改以公式計算法定進用率、將例外單位適用於公私部門並以定期職務分析把關、將部分工時條款一併適用於非障礙勞工；在合理調整義務方面，則可採取行政主導的立法方式，並課予雇主更高度的主動義務。此外，尚可併用僱用義務途徑及歧視禁止途徑，以利同時達成障礙者僱用之質的擴大及量的提升。最後，我國之當務之急，仍是盡快將合理調整義務明確立法，並在立法前以CRPD之內涵進行合公約之法律解釋，以保障身心障礙者之工作權。

Persons with disabilities have been in the labor dilemma for a long time. In order to solve the problem, Taiwan established the quota system in 1990 and passed Act to Implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2014. However, 'reasonable accommodation', the important concept of CRPD, has not yet been legislated. Compared with Taiwan, Japan established the quota system in 1960, signed CRPD in 2007, and amended relevant laws in 2011 and 2013 in order to implement the obligation of reasonable accommodation. This experience is worth learning from Taiwan. After comparing the legislation of the two countries, this thesis argues that in terms of the quota system, Taiwan could enact the formula to calculate the rate of the quota system, make private employers be included in excluded agencies, make good use of job analysis system, and change the calculation of part-time worker; in terms of reasonable accommodation, this thesis argues that the executive-led legislative approach could be adopted and the employers could be imposed a higher degree of active duty. In addition, the employment obligation approach and the discrimination prohibition approach could be used together to facilitate the expansion of the quality and quantity of employment of persons with disabilities. Finally, Taiwan’s immediate priority is to legislate the obligation of reasonable accommodation and to interpretate laws in accordance with CRPD before legislation.