勞工離職後競業禁止條款之研究──勞動基準法第9條之一規範要件與法律效果之分析

A Study on Non-compete Clause : The Analysis on Elements and Legal Effect of Labor Standards Act Article 9-1

離職後競業禁止條款為雇主為維持其競爭優勢，經由與勞工約定於離職後一定期間與區域內，不得受雇或經營與其相同或類似之業務工作的契約約定，亦即雇主以限制人民（離職勞工）工作權之方式，以達其目的之措施。為了為保障勞工離職之自由權，兼顧各行業之特性差異，平衡勞雇雙方權益，立法者於2015年12月16日，公布施行新增訂之勞動基準法第9條之一，首度將離職後競業禁止條款的審查標準訂於法律之中，讓此類條款之審查有更明確可資遵循之標準。而勞動基準法第9條之一雖延續過去法院所採之四標準說，然各項標準之內涵與過去之實務見解不盡相同，新法除了明訂禁止競業之期間以二年為上限，以及雇主應給予符合勞動基準法施行細則第7條之三標準之合理補償外，雇主應受保護之正當營業利益的範圍，以及禁止競業之職位或職務與區域等要件，有所爭議。本文首先就各項爭議為分析，並說明離職後競業禁止條款不限於營業秘密保護之意旨，次就不符合勞動基準法第9條之一要件之條款效力為說明，分析適用美國法上之紅鉛筆原則、藍鉛筆原則與合理修改原則的利弊，並得出勞動基準法第9條之一第3項為一部無效、全部無效之法律效果，最後參酌德國商法第74條以下相關規定，區別「條款無效」與「條款有效但不具拘束力」之立法方式，讓離職勞工自由選擇是否繼續受不具合理性之條款的限制，也讓信賴條款具有合理性且遵守條款之勞工能取得補償金，以於兼顧維持雇主競爭優勢下，仍能以合理之方式保障勞工之工作權。

To maintain competitiveness, employers will ask employees to sign non-compete clauses obligating employees not to do the same or similar job in specific period and area after resignation. Since the non-compete clause will harm the employee's right to work, on December 16th 2015, the Labor Standards Act Article 9-1 (Art9-1) was enacted to stipulate the criteria for the validity of non-compete clause balancing both employers' and employees' right and interests. Although the criteria of this article is almost the same as past judicial review, the content of the criteria is different. That is, despite that the period of business strife limitation (shall not be more than two years) and the reasonable compensation (which should be paid by the employer), the scope of protection for employers' proper business interests, and the criteria of the reasonable period, area and occupational activities are still controversial. Therefore, this article will first analyze disputes arising from criteria and elaborate why the protection of trade secrets is not the only purposes of non-compete clauses. Second, the article elaborates the validity of the non-compete clause which doesn't meet the elements of Article 9-1, and analyzes pros and cons of applying blue pencil rule, red pencil rule and equitable reformation doctrine in Taiwan. Through the analysis, the legal effect of violating Article 9-1 should be “a part of a juridical act is void, the whole juridical act is void.” Finally, the article introduces Article 74a of German Commercial Code, stipulating the legal effect can be “invalid” or “valid but no legal binding,” so employees can not only choose to follow the unreasonable non-compete clauses or not, but also let the employees trusting the clauses could be compensated reasonably by employers. Thus, employers' competitiveness could be maintained and worker's right to work can also be guaranteed in a reasonable manner.