裁決命復職後二次解僱法律問題初探——臺灣高等法院 一○一年度重勞上字第三十七號判決評釋

The Preliminary Study on Legal Issues Regarding the Second Discharge after the Reinstatement Decision: Comments on Taiwan High Court Judgment Chong Lao Shan Tsu No.37 (2012)

本文嘗試探討訴訟繫屬中二次解僱之相關議題，以臺灣高等法院一○一年度重勞上字第三十七號判決之事實為基礎出發，分析違法解僱訴訟繫屬中雇主通知復職之法律效力、二次解僱之禁止與容許、二次解僱法律行為之定性及判決既判力遮斷效之影響等。再者，2011年5月1日新設立不當勞動行為裁決制度，其中常見裁決決定發布命復職救濟命令，如雇主不服裁決決定依勞資爭議處理法第四十八條第一項規定提起民事訴訟，但同時遵裁決救濟命令通知勞工復職，然後於復職期間再為二次解僱者，此際勞工針對復職後之第二次解僱再申請第二件裁決，第二件裁決又認定第二次解僱無效，雇主不服第二件裁決又須提起第二件民事訴訟，此際即會產生和前訴訟極為錯綜複雜的關係。為此，本文嘗試以目前的學說實務見解來釐清相關爭議，並提出個人淺見。因相關議題多屬初見，本文法律見解確實僅為「初探」容或有許多可能的謬誤，尚請先進賜教指正。

Based on the facts of the Taiwan High Court Judgment Chong Lao Shan Tsu No.37 (2012), this article is aiming to discuss the relevant issues with respect to the second discharge in a pending lawsuit. The content will include the analyses of the legal effects regarding the reinstatement informed by the employer in an illegal-discharged litigation, the prohibition and allowance of the second discharge, the characterization of second discharge and the effects of res judicata. Furthermore, the new unfair-labor-practices decision-making system was established on May 1, 2011where the reinstatement decision is the most common decision awarded. If the employer files a civil lawsuit against the reinstatement decision awarded according to the first paragraph of Article 48 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes but concurrently informs the labor his/her reinstatement in accordance with the decision awarded, and then discharges such labor again during the reinstatement period. Accordingly, if such labor applies for the second decision against the second discharge after his/her reinstatement and the second decision awarded confirms the invalidation of such second discharge, and then the employer files a civil lawsuit against the second decision, in such event, there will be a very complicated relation between the first and the second lawsuit. For this purpose, this article hereby attempts to clarify the relevant issues in accordance with the current legal doctrine and judicial interpretation and provide certain opinions with respect thereto. Since the relevant issues are mostly first viewed, the legal opinions proposed in this article are indeed the “preliminary study” and there might be some possible errors contained. Therefore, it would be much appreciated should any advices, corrections and comments are provided.