| 中文摘要 |
大法官會議在民國103年作出釋字第七二六號解釋，其內容在釐清最高法院與最高行政法院對於勞基法第八十四條之一所稱「核備」的見解孰是孰非。此一概念其實就是整個勞動法的縮影，唯有掌握後者的「宏觀圖像」，吾人才能正確地詮釋前者的涵義與問題。遺憾地，大法官們卻反其道而行，在不諳勞動法特性（尤其忽視集體勞動法）的情況下逕行認定地方勞工行政主管機關的核備（公權力的介入）即能令適用該條的勞工免於過勞的命運。然而，由於核備在實務上幾乎形同對雇主所主導的超時工作進行背書，本號解釋恐怕僅能對聲請人的個案發揮第四審的效果而已。
The Grand Justice Council released in 2014 the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 726 regarding a disagreement on ?approval and record“ according to Art. 84-1 of the Labor Standards Act between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The term concerned is indeed a microcosm of the Taiwanese labor law as a whole. However, since the Council did not realize the importance of the collective labor law, it's interpretation merely sided with the Supreme Administrative Court without having tried to put the article mentioned under scrutiny. As a result thereof No. 726 could probably only help the applicants reopen a remedy process, while the othe workers and employees continue to suffer overwork “legally“ according to the LSA. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
