日本彈性工時法制之研究

Abstract

工作時間為勞動議題中的核心焦點之一，我國勞動基準法歷次重大修正，該如何從法規範面降低我國勞工的工作時數經常是修法的重點。我國勞工的工時問題，除了工時過長以外，亦時有工時制度彈性不足的批判。日本於1987年勞動基準法修正前的勞動環境也面臨類似問題，因此日本在1987年勞動基準法修正時，正式引入了彈性工時制度（フレックスタイム制）作為解決方法之一。彈性工時制度允許勞工在設定的清算期間內自行決定每日工作開始及結束時間，並透過勞資協定詳細規範適用對象、清算期間長度、清算期間總工時、核心時間等。其立法意旨包括平衡工作與生活、提升勞工工作動力與效率，並期望能有效縮短總工時。2018年日本推動工作方式改革關聯法案（働き方改革関連法），進一步修正彈性工時制度之內容，希望使彈性工時制度之運用更加普及。 彈性工時制度實施後的效果，在本論文收集的相關統計研究顯示，在員工人數多的大公司及特定行業中普及率較高，且彈性工時制度確實有助於縮短勞工的總工作時間、減少無償加班，並能顯著提升勞工對自身工作時間管理的滿意度。 鑒於上述研究結果，本論文認為我國勞基法未來關於工時制度的修正方向，可參考日本導入完整彈性工時制度，但除了彈性工時制度本身，還有其他應配合修改的法規範，例如：實施特殊工時制度要件之再檢討、加班費計算方式調整、配合我國特有一例一休制度之調整，並保留現有勞基法第三十條第八項之低度彈性工時規定，使勞工有更多選擇，並期望透過工時制度之改革達成縮短工時及促進勞工身心健康的成果。

Working time is one of the core issues in labor law and policy. In Taiwan, each major amendment to the Labor Standards Act (LSA) has frequently centered on the legislative goal of reducing excessive working hours. Beyond the problem of long working hours, Taiwan’s working hour system has also been criticized for its insufficient flexibility. In seeking legal models for reform, and in light of the fact that Japan has faced similar challenges prior to its 1987 amendment of the Labor Standards Act, this study adopts Japan as a comparative legal jurisdiction for reference and analysis. Through the collection and review of legal literature, this study examines the legislative background of Japan’s 1987 Labor Standards Act amendment, particularly focusing on the introduction of the flexible working time and the legal issues. In addition, statistical data released by Japanese government agencies and labor research institutions are analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the new legislation . This comparative approach seeks to determine whether Japan’s reform succeeded in achieving its policy objectives and what lessons it may hold for the future reform of Taiwan’s Labor Standards Act. In 1987 amendment, Japan formally introduced the flexible working time as a legislative solution to both the problem of excessively long working hours and increasing international pressure to modernize its labor practices. Flexible working time allows employees to determine their own starting and ending times within a defined settlement period, subject to certain constraints. Labor-management agreements are required to define the scope of application, length of the settlement period, total hours to be worked within the settlement period, and the designation of core hours. The legislative intent included promoting work-life balance, enhancing worker motivation and productivity, and shortening overall working hours. Further reform occurred in 2018 with the enactment of the Work Style Reform Laws, which extended the maximum settlement period from one to three months. In addition, the revised law imposed a reporting obligation on employers to notify the relevant administrative authority of labor-management agreements establishing a settlement period longer than one month. Empirical data collected in the study show that, while the overall adoption rate of the flexible working time among Japanese companies remains relatively low at approximately 5%, the rate exceeds 30% among large enterprises with over 1,000 employees. Higher adoption rates are also observed in specific sectors such as information and communications technology, academic research, specialized professional services, and public utilities (e.g., electricity, gas, heat, and water supply industries). These statistics also demonstrate that flexible working time does contribute to reducing total working hours, curbing unpaid overtime, and significantly improving employee satisfaction with their ability to manage their own working time. Given these findings, and in light of the increasing public awareness and acceptance of flexible working time in Taiwan, this study suggests that Taiwan should consider adopting a more flexible working time framework within its Labor Standards Act. However, successful adoption would require not only the establishment of a flexible working time regime but also accompanying legislative reforms, such as re-evaluating the statutory requirements for special working hour schemes, adjusting the calculation of overtime pay, and reconciling the system with Taiwan’s unique one fixed day off and one flexible rest day regime. Another aspect is to retain the low flexible working hours, which Taiwan currently permits such arrangements under Article 30, Paragraph 8 of the LSA. This paper argues that this provision could be preserved to provide more choices for both employers and employees. Ultimately, it is hoped that reforming the working time framework in Taiwan will contribute meaningfully to the goals of reducing overall working hours and promoting the physical and mental well-being of workers.