工會行動權之法理與言論自由之界限

Limitation on the Right to Act Collectively and the Union's Freedom of Speech

工會對雇主之批評言論或企業不法之揭發言論是工會組織存續和運作的重要元素。但是工會幹部往往因此而受到雇主以妨害名譽或懲戒解僱之追究。最高法院曾認定雇主以工會幹部所為之批評或揭發言論違反勞動契約上之忠誠義務為由所為之懲戒解僱並不違法。但是在2011年不當勞動行為裁決機制起動後，裁決委員會和臺北高等行政法院相繼承認工會幹部基於全體勞動之權益，認定對雇主所為之批評言論或企業不法之揭露言論亦屬工會活動之範疇，雇主應負有容忍之義務。相對於此，日本實務和學說之間對於雇主應負容忍義務之見解並不一致。主要的差異在於爭議行為和工會活動中所為批評言論是否應有不同之正當性的評價基準。前者在勞動組合法中有明文之民刑事免責的保障，後者在無明文規定下，可能受到雇主設施管理權或企業秩序的拘束。我國未來的實務發展將不可避免發生兩者間區別的問題以及如何設定其不同正當性判斷基準之課題。

To criticize and blow the whistle on the employers is very important to the continuation and the administration of labor unions, but union leaders are often dismissed or dealt with a disadvantage. The Supreme Court has recognized such a dismissal as breach of duty and of loyalty. However, after initiating remedies for unfair labor practices in 2011, several decisions that recognized the employer's obligation not to interfere with labor unions or its criticism and whistle-blowing by leaders have been made by Tribunal for Unfair Labor Practices and Taipei High Administrative Court. On the other hand, opinions regarding whether or not employers interfere with labor unions remain in discord between theory and practice in Japan. Determining the evaluation of employer's obligation regarding interfering with activities of labor unions and labor disputes would therefore be inevitable in Taiwan.