勞工可否「事後」排定特別休假？──評臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第1496號判決

Whether Labors Can Arrange Dates of Annual Paid Leave Retroactively?: Review of the Taipei High Administrative Court 2020 Su-Zi No. 1496 Judgement

勞工對於缺勤之期日，得否在事後以排定特別休假（補請特休）之方式處理，臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第1496號判決採取肯定見解，認為勞工有於事後排定特別休假之權利，除非雇主有勞動基準法第38條第2項但書之事由，否則即便雇主於工作規則中有相關請假程序之規定，仍不得拒絕勞工事後將其特別休假排定於缺勤當日。然而，自勞動基準法第38條第2項之文義解釋、目的解釋及比較法解釋，以及特別休假權利之法律效果而言，特別休假之權利應只能在事前行使，若勞工擬在事後溯及排定特別休假，即應取得雇主之同意。倘若肯認勞工得在事後單方任意排定特別休假，恐將造成諸多不當之結果及問題。

Whether labors can arrange dates of annual paid leave retroactively on the days of absence? The Taipei High Administrative Court 2020 Su-Zi No. 1496 Judgement admitted it, indicates that unless the situations listed in the proviso of Article 38 (2) of the Labor Standards Act occurs, even if there are relevant leave procedures in the work rules, the employer cannot refuse labors to arrange dates of annual paid leave on the day of absence. However, in the viewpoint of the interpretation of the text of Article 38 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, purposive construction and comparative jurisprudence, as well as the legal effect of right to annual paid leave, the right to annual paid leave shall only be exercised in advance. In case the labor need to arrange dates of annual paid leave retroactively after absence, the labor shall obtain the consent of the employer. If it is admitted that labors can unilaterally arrange dates of annual paid leave arbitrarily afterwards, it may cause many improper results and problems.