不當勞動行為裁決與司法程序之斷裂：最高行政法院102年度判字第413號判決評釋

The Discontinuity between the Dispute Resolution for Unfair Labor Practices and the Judicial Proceeding: Comment on Fis-cal Year 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court Verdict No.413

99年新勞動三法之增修，健全不當勞動行為之實體與程序規範，為我國集體勞動權開展之契機。雇主之不當勞動行為形式有諸多態樣，如工會法第35條第2項所定之「解僱、降調、減薪」，至於「其他不利待遇」如本件考績評定乙等之爭議，如構成不當勞動行為，法律效果為何？本件判決似認非屬無效，且似否定裁決會命雇主為勞工考績甲等之意思表示。從本件判決可觀察裁決與司法程序各自運作之斷裂現狀，本文將從裁決會要件事實認定及效果裁量受司法審查之密度為何，作為本件判決評釋之重點。本文認為「其他不利待遇」雖未規定在工會法第35條第2項，但工會法第35條第1項規定為禁止規定，依民法第71條或類推適用工會法第35條第2項規定，「其他不利待遇」仍得解為無效。又不當勞動行為裁決之效果裁量應從勞資關係正常化觀點來看行為是否需要矯正，法院對裁決會裁量權之行使，應予相當程度之尊重。

The 2010 new substantial and procedural regulation of unfair labor practices in Taiwan has deeply improved the development of the collective rights of labors. If employers take different unfair ways, such as the labor of dismissal, demotion, or pay cut, to sup-press the labor union survival, the ways of the legal effect are void. However, fiscal year 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court verdict no.413 seemingly proposes that the way of bad performance evaluation is not void, and the dispute resolution for unfair labor practices cannot order the employer to evaluate specific performance of the labor. The above proposition of the verdict is debatable. Obviously, there is discontinuity between the dispute resolution and the judicial proceeding about unfair labor practices. This article explains and comments this verdict, focus on the judicial level of scrutiny for the decision of dispute resolution. In my opinion, according to the Civil Code article 71 or the analogy of the Trade Unions Act article 35 paragraph 2, the bad performance evaluation as unfair labor practices is also void. And instead of considering the private right of the party, the dispute resolution not only considers how the damaged labor collective right gets back to its normal but also corrects the employer’s behavior. Therefore, the court ought to relatively respect for the effect discretion of the dispute resolution. The ambition of this article expects to bridge the gap between the dispute resolution and the judicial proceeding.