關於權利事項與調整事項勞資爭議之區分

A Study of the Distincition of Dispute of Right and Adujustment in Labor-Management Dispute Settlement

在我國勞資爭議處理的法津實務上，權利事項或調整事項之勞資爭議的區分，向來是極有爭論之問題。而此一問題的解決又涉及到其解決爭議所得適用之各種調解與仲裁等行政處理程序、司法訴訟程序及爭議行為之解決方式的適用可能性，故對爭議當事人之權益影響不可謂不大。惟我國國內目前之學界論述、法院判決與勞工行政機關之解釋令，不但未能使現行勞資爭議處理法第四條不十分明確且欠缺周延之爭議分類與定義規定進一步具體化、明確化，尤其是行政機關之解釋令更自行另創一所謂非勞資爭議處理法所定之第三類爭議，使得原本已極為紊亂之情況更為惡化，爭議當事人也更無所適從。
本文除分別敘述國內各界之見解外，並分析國內狀況之所以如此混亂之真正原因，且進一步說明基於司法訴訟程序之依「法」審判的本質，勞資爭議事件之須區分為可循司法訴訟程序解決之爭議與不能依司法程序解決之爭議二者，無論如可乃是制度上之必要與必然。惟若就行政處理程序而言，則實無區分之必要，更遑論必然。故作者一方面認為勞資爭議應依可否循司法訴訟程序解而對勞資爭議進行二分，且亦只能二分，邏輯上絕無所謂第三類爭議存在之可能；另一方面，作者亦認為，不問是可循司法途徑解決之權利事項爭議或是不可循司法途徑解決之調整事項爭議，二者均當然得依調解或仲裁程序解決之，權利事項之爭議並無絕對不可循仲裁程序解決之實質理由。

It is a controversial and confused issue on the distinction between disputes of right and adjustment in the labor management dispute settlement procedure in Taiwan. This issue is closely related to the choice of mediation or arbitration, the process of judicial litigation, and the possibility of exercising industrial actions. It strongly influences the rights of the disputed parties. The principles of categorizing the disputes of right and adjustment were listed in the article 4 of the Labor-Management Dispute Settlement Law. Unfortunately, numerous academic publications, judicial sentences, and administrative orders were not helpful in clarifying the distinction. Moreover, the administrative orders further created a third type of dispute which perplexed the situations.
This paper introduces different scholars' views on the disputes of right and adjustment along with possible causes for the confusion. The author argues that the disputes should be settled through judicial or administrative procedure and that either the dispute of right or dispute of adjustment can be integrated into the mediation or arbitration process. Following the preceeding argument, it is suggested, there is no sufficient reason to reject the dispute of adjustment in the current arbitration process.