加拿大中間類型勞動者勞動權益保障法制之研究──兼論我國法制之省思與展望

Protection for Intermediate Workers - Reflection and Prospect of Taiwanese Legal System

隨著工作型態日趨多元，相關勞動爭議層出不窮，許多國家立法者逐漸意識到以勞動者是否具備「勞工」身分，作為其勞動權益能否受到保障之勞動保護立法，儼然難以因應新興工作型態下勞動者之權益保障問題，遂有建構「中間類型勞動者」法制，調整既有勞動者身分光譜，作為擴張勞動保障途徑之趨勢，避免有受保護需求之勞動者，因無法被歸類為勞工，而被排除於勞動法令涵蓋範圍外之窘境。衡諸加拿大「中間類型勞動者」法制發展歷史悠久，且規範堪認完備，不僅已設有體系架構完整之法制，行政與司法之實務運作亦皆十分成熟，並有助於解決新興工作型態所生爭議。在法制面，加拿大所採取之規範模式甚為多元，尤以型塑廣義之勞工定義以涵蓋中間類型勞動者概念，藉此擴大勞動保護涵蓋範圍之模式，得使更多勞動者能受到勞動法令之保障，且與我國社會文化及立法相符，誠值我國借鏡；司法實務方面，加拿大設有層次分明之二階層認定架構，確明勞動者身分認定之順序，有助於避免錯誤分類。此外，在行政部分，加拿大勞資關係委員會近年來首度就零工經濟勞動者得否適用中間類型勞動者制度所作成之裁決，並在經濟依賴性有無之判斷上，聚焦於契約關係實質層面，追求個案妥適性之作法，頗值我國借鑑與省思。

With the increasing diversity of work styles and the emergence of relevant labor disputes, legislators in many countries have gradually realized that labor protection depending on the status of ＂employee＂ is not applicable to solve the problems arising from the emerging work styles. Therefore, many countries have made efforts to readjust the worker's status spectrum and establish a legal system of ＂intermediate workers＂ to broaden their applicable scope of the labor laws. As a result, people face the predicament of being excluded by the labor law due to their failure to qualify as an employee but have the same need for labor protection will be protected. The legal system of ＂intermediate workers＂ in Canada has been developing for a long time. Not only does it have a complete legal system, but the practical operation of the administration and the judiciary is very mature and helps resolve disputes arising from emerging work styles. In terms of the legal system, the model adopted by Canada is very diverse. In particular, the Canadian model creates a broader definition of employee, including the concept of intermediate workers, and extends the labor protection to more workers. It is in line with social culture and legislation in Taiwan and can be used as a reference when Taiwan formulates relevant laws in the future. In judicial practice, Canadian courts develop a clear two-class status determination framework to clarify the order of judging workers' status and avoid misclassification. In addition, at the administrative level, the Canadian Labor Relations Board made its first ruling on whether gig economy workers can apply the legal system of the ＂intermediate workers＂ in recent years. In examining whether a worker is economically dependent, the Board focused on the substantive aspect of contractual relationships and pursued suitability adjudications. The practices mentioned above are worth learning and reflecting on.