不當勞動行為救濟命令之分析──臺灣與美國之比較法研究

Abstract

本論文旨在研究，我國不當勞動行為之救濟命令應如何設計，方能更有效地阻止將來不當勞動行為之發生，以協助建立公平之勞資關係。為探究此問題，本論文首先分析，我國不當勞動行為裁決制度施行至今，裁決會運用救濟命令有哪些特徵和疑義。分析結果為，裁決會曾普遍運用「不作為命令」和「公告命令」，隨後大幅減少運用之，然裁決案件申請人請求作成前開命令之情形仍不少見。又對於雇主制定或變更規定構成不當勞動行為之案件，曾有裁決案件申請人請求命令雇主廢除或暫停實施該規定，裁決會均未採納之。前述三種命令或事件類型，一方面凸顯勞方之需求，另一方面顯示命令於運用上可能存有爭議。本論文遂聚焦於研究此三種救濟命令，首先分析適法性，而後研究合法裁量範圍內，應如何制定更為妥適之救濟命令。後者為本論文之研究重心。本論文將以美國之實踐經驗為借鏡，研究美國如何運用相關之救濟命令。此外，本論文也研究美國救濟命令整體之發展，一方面更全面性地理解相關救濟命令所處之脈絡、特徵、與困境，另一方面，對救濟命令之功能與不當勞動行為之處罰規定，提出反思。

This thesis aims to examine how remedial orders for unfair labor practices in Taiwan should be designed to more effectively prevent future violations, and thereby contribute to the establishment of fair labor-management relations. To explore this question, the thesis first analyzes the characteristics and issues regarding the use of remedial orders by the Tribunal for Unfair Labor Practice (The Board). The thesis reveals that while the Tribunal had previously made widespread use of “cease orders” and “notice orders,” their use has declined despite continued requests from petitioners. Additionally, in cases where an employer’s establishment or amendment of working rules constituted an unfair labor practice, petitioners had requested that the employer be ordered to repeal or suspend the rules. However, the Tribunal consistently rejected such requests. This thesis therefore focuses on these three types of remedial orders. It first analyzes their legality, and then considers how such orders may be more appropriately formulated within the scope of the Tribunal’s discretion—the latter being the main focus of the research. Drawing on U.S. practice, this thesis examines how similar remedial orders have been employed under U.S. labor law. Moreover, it examines the overall development of remedial orders in the U.S., both to better understand the context, characteristics, challenges of such orders, and to reflect on the functions of remedial orders and the role of punitive provisions for unfair labor practices.