大學教師評鑑相關法律問題探討

Research on Legal Issues Involved in Faculty Evaluation

大學法第二十一條規定：「大學應建立教師評鑑制度，對於教師之教學、研究、輔導及服務成效進行評鑑，作為教師升等、續聘、長期聘任、停聘、不續聘及獎勵之重要參考。」因此我國公私立大學均有「教師評鑑」制度。由於大學教師評鑑之結果將影響大學教師之權利，本文以大學教師評鑑未通過之法律性質及救濟途徑為核心並兼論司法審查之態度。首先從大學教師評鑑與憲法保障學術自由為出發，並認為大學教師之素質影響教學研究，大學基於追求卓越之要求制訂相關評鑑辦法，除非配分比重上過於偏重某一項目，否則各大學依自行訂定評鑑辦法並依此評鑑大學教師應屬合憲。其次，關於公立大學第一次評鑑未通過之法律性質實務雖有「行政處分說」與「非行政處分說」，本文認為因第一次評鑑未通過將使教師財產權、休假權及名譽權受到影響，故應屬具有「法效性」之行政處分。至於第二次評鑑未通過將連結身分上之不利益通常為「不續聘」於此符合教師法第十四條第一項第十四款之規定，其法律性質分公私立大學而有所不同。再者，關於未通過之救濟分校內與校外救濟。一般而言，校內救濟由於各校自訂辦法有所不同，其途徑有申復、再申復或申訴等不同模式。本文認為對大學教師評鑑未通過係屬教師法第二十九條之「學校對其個人有關之措施」應向學校提申訴，不服申訴決定再向教育部提「再申訴」之後依公私立大學而分別提起行政訴訟或民事訴訟。此外，司法在面對大學教師評鑑之審查態度及密度方面，教師評鑑與教師升等雖然不同，但「教師評鑑」之目的攸關大學教師素質和研究水準，並涉及受評教師相關權利，如休假、借調、晉薪甚至遭到工作權之剝奪。因此法院在受理此類事務自得審查是否遵守相關程序或其評鑑之專業判斷有無違法或顯然不當以對抗「專業濫用」。

＂Universities shall establish the teacher review system for reviewing the achievements of the teaching, research, instruction and services as important references for upgrading, reengagement, long term suspension, refusal of reengagement and encouragement of teachers＂, stated in Article 21 of University Act. As a result, both public and private universities have ＂teacher review＂ system in Taiwan. Due to the result of teacher review will impact the right of university teachers, this article firstly discusses the university teacher review system and academic freedom under the protection of Constitution, the authors believe teachers’ quality effects teaching and research. Thus, in order to pursue excellence, the relative review regulations could be made. Unless the review items are inappropriately proportioned, universities could establish their own teacher review systems and review their teachers in accordance with Constitution. Secondly, regarding the legal nature and practice of not passing the first review, there are classified into ＂administrative sanction＂ and ＂non- ’administrative sanction＂. This article argues, due to failure of passing the first review will impact teachers’ property right, leave right and honor, its legal nature shall belong to administrative sanction. In the regard of failure in passing the second review which normally comes to the result of ＂no renewal employment＂, it complies with the regulation of Article 14-1, though its legal nature is varied depending on public or private universities. Then, the remedy of failing to pass the review could be classified into inside the university remedy and outside the university remedy. In the most cases, inside the university remedy could be varied depending on the university’s regulations, there could be different modes, including response, re-response or appeal. This article argues one shall appeal to the university when failing to pass the university teacher review under the Article 29 of Teachers’ Act, which stated,＂ when a teacher considers the measures taken against him/her by the competent educational authority or the school illegal or inappropriate, and so his/her rights are damaged, s/he can appeal to the Teachers’ Appeal Review Committee of all levels.＂ If one is not satisfied with the result or reply from university, he or she could re-response to the Department of Education or take legal actions toward university. In addition, scrutiny of judicial review on the university teacher review and promotion is diverse. However, the purpose of university teacher review is to level up the quality of university teachers and their research work. Thus, it is related to the teachers’ rights, like leaves, transfer, promotion, and exploit of work right. Hence, it is crucial for courts to consider the relative regulations and decide whether there could be ＂professional abuse.＂