罷工糾察行為正當性判斷基準之研究——日本與臺灣之學理分析及實務經驗比較

A Research on the Assessment Criteria of the Legitimacy of Picket Strike: Comparison of Theoretical Analysis and the Practice Experience between Japan and Taiwan

2011年新勞動三法修訂施行後，工會運動開始盛行，勞資爭議中工會也勇於嘗試罷工。在罷工過程中，難免會有糾察線之設置必要。有關糾察線之規範，於勞資爭議處理法第54條第1項置有規定：「工會非經會員以直接、無記名投票且經全體過半數同意，不得宣告罷工及設置糾察線」，為我國首見正式承認糾察線之規定。惟現行法中並未明示糾察行為正當性之判斷基準，以致罷工過程中屢屢因實施糾察行為而引起爭議。例如2017年普來利事件中，因糾察行為之實施導致公、勞、資三方發生肢體衝突案件後，有關糾察行為之正當性應如何判斷便成為重要之課題。本文透過日本法學說之研究分析，釐清日本學界關於和平說服說與實力阻止容許說之見解差異。進而彙整歸納日本法院實務判決，觀察最高法院從最早和平說服說、諸般情事論，至重視全體法秩序觀點之演進過程，以作為我國學理發展與實務判決之借鑑。最後並透過研究回顧我國歷來有關糾察行為之文獻，探求適合我國國情之糾察行為正當性判斷基準。本文認為糾察行為正當性之判斷基準，必須兼而考量勞資關係歷史與對抗關係、糾察行為實施之對象、以及施行手段對於反社會性之強度、可能造成實害之危險等層面綜合檢視認定。

After the implementation of the new Labor Law in 2011, the union movement began to prevail and labor unions are also unafraid to try to strike in labor disputes. During the strike, it is inevitable that there will be a need for picketing. The rule of the picket line, which is stipulated in Article 54 (1) of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes states that “A labor union shall not declare a strike and set up picket lines unless the strike has been approved by no less than half of the members in total via direct and secret balloting.” This is the first time that the legislation officially recognizes the picket line in Taiwan. However, the current law does not clearly indicate the criteria for judging the legitimacy of picketing, so that the implementation of picketing has repeatedly caused controversies and disputes. For example, with regard to Homebox v.s. Union in 2017, the implementation of picketing had led to the physical conflicts between the government, the labors, and the employers. It is therefore an important issue to judge the legitimacy of the picketing. Based on the research and analysis of Japanese jurisprudence, this article clarifies the differences between Japanese academic circles’ views concerning the peaceful persuasion theory and the acceptance of obstruction by physical force theory. Furthermore, it summarizes the judgments of Japanese courts by observing the Supreme Court’s evolution from the earliest peaceful persuasion theory, various circumstances theory to the aspects of the whole legal order as a reference for the development of academic theory and court’s judgment in Taiwan. Finally, through the research, it will review the literature on the picketing in Taiwan and explore the benchmarks of assessing the legitimacy of picketing suitable for sociopolitical atmosphere and conditions in Taiwan. This research argues that the criteria for judging the legitimacy of picketing must consider the history and confrontations between the labor and management, the object of the implementation of picketing, and the comprehensive inspection and identification of the means of anti-social intensity and the danger of actual harm.