本文從法律釋義學的觀點，探討勞資爭議處理法第55條第3項阻卻刑事違法的規定，在刑法與勞動法上之法理，以及該項規定具體適用之問題。該項規定以正當性作為爭議行為的阻卻違法事由，乃是法律所特別規定的阻卻違法事由。學說上曾經以社會相當性作為爭議行為阻卻違法事由，但為現行法所不採，不過其仍然得作為解釋正當性之出發點。依勞資爭議處理法所為的合法爭議行為與正當爭議行為並非完全相同；爭議行為在刑法違法性的判斷上可以採兩階段的判斷，第一階段先依據勞資爭議處理法的合法性要件作判斷；若不具有合法性者才作第二階段正當性的判斷。爭議權可能與雇主或第三人之基本權發生衝突，爭議行為正當性的判斷標準在於衡量勞工爭議權與雇主及第三人基本權之間法益的衡平，比例原則得作為判斷爭議行為正當性之標準。阻卻違法的主體不應限於工會與工會會員。爭議行為不應僅以爭議目的不合法，即否定其正當性。違反勞資爭議處理法程序之爭議行為，並非當然具有刑法上的違法性。爭議行為正當性判斷的重心在於爭議手段，該當犯罪構成要件的爭議手段，得因符合比例原則而阻卻違法。罷工行為原則上並不構成強制罪。罷工糾察線的行為如果涉及對於第三人生命與身體的侵害，乃是對於人的身體施用暴力的行為，該當強制罪的強暴概念，有可能成立強制罪；罷工糾察行為中的言論，原則上並不構成公然侮辱罪與誹謗罪。廠場圍堵或廠場占據行為，即使該當強制罪之構成要件，若為勞資爭議對等所必要，仍有可能阻卻違法。非長期妨礙雇主所有權行使之廠場占據，得阻卻侵入住居罪之違法性。

From the perspectives of legal dogmatics, this article explores the criminal justification clause in Article 55, Paragraph 3 of the Act for the Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes (the Act). It examines the jurisprudential foundations of this provision within both criminal and labor law, while also addressing key issues regarding its practical application. By establishing legitimacy as a ground of justification for industrial action, this provision constitutes a specific statutory ground of justification. The concept of social equivalence has previously been invoked in legal scholarship as a ground for justifying industrial actions. However, this approach has not been adopted under current statutory frameworks. Nevertheless, it may still serve as a point of departure in interpreting the legitimacy of such conduct. Lawful industrial actions and those deemed justified under the Act are not entirely synonymous. The determination of criminal unlawfulness in industrial actions may be approached through a two-stage analysis. The first stage entails evaluating the action’s legality in light of the statutory requirements outlined in the Act. If the action fails to satisfy these criteria, a second-stage analysis should then be conducted to assess whether it may nonetheless be justified. The exercise of the right to industrial action may conflict with the fundamental rights of employers or third parties. In such cases, the justification for the industrial actions must be evaluated through a balancing of legal interests between the right to industrial action and the competing fundamental rights of others. Within this framework, the principle of proportionality may serve as a guiding criterion for determining whether such actions are legally justified. The scope of criminal immunity should not be confined to labor unions and their members. Industrial actions should not be deemed unjustifiable solely on the basis that their underlying purpose is unlawful. Moreover, a labor dispute action that violates procedural requirements under the Act is not automatically unjustifiable under criminal law. The central focus of the justification analysis lies in the means employed during the dispute. Even if those means satisfy the elements of a criminal offense, they may nonetheless be justified if they conform to the principle of proportionality. Generally, strike actions do not constitute coercion. If the actions of picketing involve harm to the life or body of a third party, they may constitute the offense of coercion. Statements made during picketing actions generally do not constitute the offense of public insult or slander. Even if a factory blockade or occupation meets the requirements for the offense of coercion, it may still be justified if necessary for parity in labor disputes. Non-permanent factory occupation, which does not obstruct the employer’s property rights, may still justify the offense of trespass upon the residence.