涉外勞動事件之國際管轄權──我國法、歐盟法及日本法之比較研究

International Jurisdiction in Labor Disputes: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese, EU, and Japanese Law

鑑於勞工與雇主間之結構性地位不對等，為保障經濟弱勢之勞工接近司法即接近正義之機會，我國勞事法第5條就涉外勞動事件，明文賦予勞工選擇向勞務提供地或雇主所在地起訴（或聲請調解）之選擇權，並據以限制勞雇雙方所為國際管轄合意之內容。然而，相較於同樣以實現國際管轄法上弱勢者保護法理之歐盟布魯塞爾第一之一規則，以及受該法啟發而又影響我國勞事法之日本民訴法，我國勞事法上之國際管轄規定顯有其不明確、不完整之處。本文乃一面引介歐盟法及日本法，一面檢討我國學說、實務現況，嘗試建構穩妥之解釋論。

Given the structural inequality between employee (labor, worker) and employers, in order to safeguard the access to justice for employee as economically weaker party, Article 5 of Taiwanese Labor Incident Act provides explicitly an employee involved in international labor cases with the options to file a lawsuit (or apply for mediation) before the court of the place where the employee carries out his work or where the employer is located; accordingly, this provision also limits the conclusion of forum selection agreements between employers and employees. However, compared to the EU Brussels Ia Regulation, which aims to realize the principle of protection of the weaker party under international jurisdiction law, as well as the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, which is inspired by the aforementioned Regulation and has influenced the legislation of Taiwanese Labor Incident Act, the law of international jurisdiction under Taiwanese Labor Incident Act obviously has some ambiguities and incompleteness. Against this backdrop, this article illustrates EU law and Japanese law while reviewing the current state of doctrine and practice in Taiwan, which forms the basis for finding appropriate solutions de lege lata to problems at hand.