勞動事件之定暫時狀態處分方法與法院職權酌定界線──評臺灣高等法院112年度勞抗字第14號民事裁定

Methods of Provisional Injunction Maintaining Temporary Status Quo for Labor Incidents and the Boundary of the Determination on Court’s Initiative—Comment on Taiwan High Court 112 Lao-Kang-Zi No.14 Civil Ruling

我國勞動事件法於民國109年1月1日施行後，勞動事件法第49條、第50條之定暫時狀態處分聲請已廣為勞工救濟使用，而就勞工所聲明之職務內容，臺灣高等法院112年度勞抗字第14號民事裁定乃以：「於爭執之法律關係有定暫時狀態之必要者，假處分之方法係由法院依職權酌定，不可逾越定暫時狀態所需要之程度，惟不受債權人聲請假處分所表明方法之拘束。」惟法院職權酌定定暫時狀態處分之方法時，基於勞動事件之特性考量，是否全然毫無界線而不受拘束，本文乃就我國之勞動事件法、民事訴訟法規範，以及學說與實務見解為研析，兼就日本法之地位保全假處分為探究，就現行實務見解為檢討，提出較妥適之審理標準，認法院應考量實體法上之調動法理及企業經營裁量核心等，並賦予足夠事前程序保障，以達勞動事件法之實質真正保障勞工意旨。

After the implementation of the Labor Incident Act in Taiwan on January 1, 109 (2020), the provisional injunction for maintaining temporary status quo under Articles 49 and 50 have been widely used by workers for relief. As for the job content claimed by the workers, Taiwan High Court in 112 Lao-Kang-Zi No.14 Civil Ruling holds that:“For those who have the necessity of a provisional status quo in the disputed legal relationship, the methods of provisional injunction is determined by the court on its own initiative, and cannot exceed the temporary status quo; while it is not bound by the methods claimed by the creditor.”Considering the nature of labor incidents, is the method of provisional injunction completely unrestricted and unbound. This article analyzes the Labor Incident Act, the Code of Civil Procedure, legal doctrines, as well as the practical opinions in Taiwan, and an order of provisional disposition to determine a provisional status in Japanese law, current practical opinions for proposing a more appropriate standard of adjudication. To achieve the purpose of the Labor Incident Act, providing genuine protection for workers, the court should consider substantive legal principles, the core discretion of business operations and provide sufficient prior procedural protection.