不當勞動行為罷工目的之研究──我國法與美國聯邦法之分析

The Study on the Purpose of Strikes for Unfair Labor Practice—An Analysis of Taiwan Law and U.S. Federal Law

我國於2011年修訂勞動三法，同時借鏡美國與日本法制，引進不當勞動行為（unfair labor practices, ULP）制度，並增訂勞資爭議處理法第53條第二項，肯認工會就經勞動部（Ministry of Labor, MOL）不當勞動行為裁決委員會認定之不當勞動行為爭議的罷工權，並將此作為權利事項不得罷工的例外，惟其中法理與相關法律爭議卻少有討論，然參酌美國法上肯定不當勞動行為罷工就其法制規範與實務發展值得借鏡之處為分析，以反觀我國法理，不當勞動行為爭議雖具有可爭訟性，然裁決與訴訟程序對於勞工與工會的權利救濟有限，尤以團結權回復有時間性的限制，及工會的團結權侵害難藉由司法程序獲得回復，是以將不當勞動行為作為合法罷工目的有其立法正當性。又不同於美國法，我國明訂裁決前置程序，此立法之適當性，以及基於此程序規範可能產生之法律問題，參酌美國法制之討論進一步分析之，相信隨著我國工會組織率的提升、工會實力的成熟，不當勞動行為罷工終將有發生之日，是以勞爭法第53條第二項立法有其正當性，並應同時釐清其中之法律爭議問題，以確保工會罷工權之行使。

In 2011, Taiwan revised the Three Labor Laws and, drawing on the legal systems of the United States and Japan, introduced the system of unfair labor practices (ULP). Additionally, Article 53, Paragraph 2 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes was added, recognizing the right to strike in disputes over unfair labor practices as determined by the Unfair Labor Practice Committee, MOL and serving as an exception to the restriction on strikes over rights disputes. However, there has been little discussion of the legal principles and related legal controversies involved. By examining the development of unfair labor practice strikes under U.S. law and reflecting on our own legal principles, while disputes over unfair labor practices are litigable, the arbitration and litigation procedures offer limited relief for the rights of workers and unions. Particularly, the restoration of the right to solidarity is time-sensitive, and judicial procedures are insufficient to address infringements on union solidarity rights. Therefore, using unfair labor practices as a legitimate strike objective is justified. Unlike U.S. law, our regulation explicitly stipulates pre-adjudication procedures. This legislative approach has its appropriateness and potential legal issues. This article further analyzes these issues by referencing discussions on the U.S. legal system. As our country’s union organization rate increases and the strength of unions matures, ULP strikes will eventually occur. Therefore, the legislative justification for Article 53, Paragraph 2 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes is affirmed. It is also necessary to clarify the related legal disputes to ensure the proper exercise of the union’s right to strike.