Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106920
題名: 我國團體協約法中誠信協商義務之探討—兼論美國法之規範
The duty to bargain in good faith in Taiwan:with a discussion on The U.S.A.
作者: 謝佳珣
貢獻者: 王惠玲
謝佳珣
關鍵詞: 不當勞動行為
不當勞動行為裁決機制
裁決制度
團體協約法
團體協商
誠信協商
誠實信用原則
必要資料義務
Unfair Labor Practices
Collective Agreements Act
Settlement of Labor Disputes Act
Labor Dispute Resolution
Collective Bargaining
Bargaining in Good Faith
Providing Information Necessary For the Bargaining.
日期: 2017
上傳時間: 1-Mar-2017
摘要: 為落實勞工團結權、團體協商權及爭議權,我國於2007年起陸續修正《工會法》、《團體協約法》及《勞資爭議處理法》,於2010年5月1日起施行,且參考美國與日本之立法,建立不當勞動行為裁決機制,以保障勞工權利不受侵害。\n 勞動三法修正對於集體勞資關係帶來重大影響,其中一項即為誠信協商制度之導入。根據修正後《團體協約法》第6條第1項之規範:「勞資雙方應本誠實信用原則,進行團體協約之協商;對於他方所提團體協約之協商,無正當理由者,不得拒絕。」規定今後勞資任一方若向他方請求協商時,他方不僅有回應的義務,且須以誠實信用原則為之。由於此制度我國尚處於起步之階段,許多問題須進一步檢討釐清。\n 因此,本文首先說明目前《團體協約法》所規範之團體協商制度,再從裁決委員會之裁決決定書當中,整理及分析我國實務上拒絕誠信協商之態樣。另外,再輔以說明美國法上誠信協商義務以及協商事項之重要類型、提供協商中必要資料義務之範圍,作為對我國誠信協商制度之啟示。
To implement the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and strike, the government has revised “Labor Union Act”, “Collective Agreement Act” and “Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes” since 2007, and finally has been in place since May 2011. In addition, the Labor Dispute Resolution Scheme for unfair labor practices also be structured by reference to the legislation of United States and Japan, to protect people from unfair labor practices.\n One of the biggest influences in the collective labor-management relations after the Legal amendments is to establish the principle of bargaining in good faith. According to Section 1 of Article 6 of the newly amended Collective Agreements Act, both the labor and the management shall proceed in good faith when bargaining for a collective agreement; any party without justifiable reasons cannot reject the collective bargaining proposed by the other party. Because it’s the first time to implement the institution in Taiwan, there are many questions in need of clarification.\n Therefore, this Article intends to introduce the collective bargaining scheme under the current Collective Agreements Act, and also sort out the decision of the Labor Dispute Resolution Scheme for unfair labor practices, attempt to analysize of the aspect of refusing to bargain in good faith in the practice. Moreover, the article is supplemented by the obligations and the important types of bargaining in good faith, the obligation of providing information necessary for the bargaining in the process in Unites States labour law, expected to have implications in Taiwan.
參考文獻: 壹、中文部分\n\n一、專書\nWilliam Gould(著),焦興鎧(譯),《美國勞工法入門》,台北:國立編譯館,1996年。\n郭玲惠,〈團體協約與團體協商〉,《台灣法學新課題》,元照出版公司,2006年。\n黃程貫,〈團體協約〉,《台灣法學新課題〈四〉》,台北元照出版,2006年。\n黃程貫,《勞動法》,國立空中大學出版,修訂再版,1997年。\n黃越欽著、王惠玲監修、黃鼎佑增修,《勞動法新論(五版)》,翰盧出版,2015年8月。\n楊通軒,集體勞工法:理論與實務,台北五南,初版,2007年。\n劉志鵬,《勞動法解讀》,月旦,1999年7月\n\n二、期刊論文\n王松柏,〈英國集體協商法治與我國相關規定的探討〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》,第55期,2004年。\n林佳和,〈社會保護、契約自由與經營權司法對勞動契約的衡平性控制〉,《臺灣勞動法學會報》,第6期,2007年6月。\n吳育仁,〈美國勞資集體協商制度之法律政策分析〉,《歐美研究》,第32卷第2期,2002年。\n侯岳宏,〈臺灣團體協商制度之變動與發展─以實務發展為中心〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》,第97期,2016年3月。\n劉士豪,〈團體協約法修正後之分析〉,《法學新論》,第9期,2009年4月。\n劉志鵬,〈團體協商義務與誠實協商義務〉,《全國律師》,15卷6期,\n2011年6月。\n謝棋楠,《美國法中個別勞工團結權與要求工會公平代表之制度》,〈全國律師〉,17卷6期,2013年6月。\n\n三、學位論文\n丁嘉惠,〈不當勞動行為規範之研究〉,中國文化大學勞工研究所,1994年。\n林祖佑,〈美國排他性協商代表制之研究及對台灣之啟示〉,臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文,2014年。\n吳姿慧,〈台灣地區團體協商制度之研究〉,國立政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文,1993年。\n吳永發,〈日本不當勞動行為之研究〉,輔仁大學法律研究所,1995年。\n吳育仁,〈團體協商程序規範之研究-以美國為例〉,政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文,1994年。\n吳怡玫,〈團體協商不當勞動行為法制之研究〉,中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2008年。\n洪明賢,〈論勞動法上之團體協商義務—我國與日本法之比較研究〉,國立台灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文,2009年7月。\n陳惠玟,〈日本教師組織之團體協商制度的形成與實踐-兼論我國教師工會之團體協商制度〉,國立政治大學日本研究碩士學位學程碩士論文,2014年。\n陳昇旭,〈我國團體協約內容之分析〉,國立中正大學勞工研究所碩士論文,1993年。\n陳姵諠,〈我國教師團體協商事項研究-以公立中小學為例〉,國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文,2015年。\n劉宣妏,〈教師工會團體協商與締結團體協約之研究-以公立中小學校為例〉,國立臺北大學法律學系法律專業組碩士論文,2013年。\n\n貳、英文部分\nBaer, W. (1989). Collective bargaining: Custom and practice. North Carolina: Mcfarland & Company Inc.\nBartosic, F., & Hartley, R. (1972). The employer`s duty to supply information to the union. Cornell Law Review, 58: 23-43.\nBartosic, F., & Hartley, R. (1986). Labor relations law in the private secto. Pa.: ALIABR.\nBean, R. (1994). Comparative industrial relations: An introduction to cross-national perspectives. London: Routledge.\nBegin, J., & Bear, E. (1989). The practice of collective bargaining. Mass., Boston: IRWIN.\nBlock, R. (1997). Rethinking the national labor relations act and zero-sum labor law. \nBerkeley Journal of Emoployment and Law, 18, 1: 30-55.\nBlock, R., Beck, J., & Krueger, D. (1996). Labor law, industrial relations, and employee choice. Mich, Kalamazoo: W. E. Upjohn Institute.\nCarrell, B., & Heavrin, C. (1988). Collecctive bargaining and labor relations. Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co..\nCorocan, L., & Wareing, A. (1994). Trade union recognition data from the 1993 labour force survey. Employment Gazette, 102/12 (December). London: Department \nof Employment.\nCox, A. (1958). The duty to bargain in good caith. Harvard Law Rewiew, 71: 1401-1423.\nDonovan Report. (1968). Royal commission on trade unions and employers association. London: HMSO.\nDorrsey, J. (1983). Canada labour relations board: Federal law and practice. Toronto: The Carswell Company Company.\nDTI. (1998). Fairness at work. London: Department of Trade and Industry.\nDecisions of the NLB, op.cit.,“Connecticut Coke Company and United Coke and Gas Workers’ Union No. 18829,” vol. II.\nFlanders, A. (1974). The tradition of voluntarism. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 12, 3: 352-370\nGibbs, R., & Levy, P. (Eds.) (1988). Employee and union member: Guide to the labor law. New York: Clark Boardman Co.\nGoman, R. (1976). Basic text on labor law: Unionization and col-lective bargaining. St. Paul: West Publishing.\nGorman, R. (1976). Labor law: Unionization and collective. Minn.: West Publishing Co.\nGould, W. (1993). Agenda for reform: The future of employment relationship and the law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT..\nJohn E. Higgins (2012), JR., (et al. eds.), The Developing Labor Law: The Board, The Courts, and The national Labor Relations Act (6th ed). Arlington, VA: Bloomberg BNA.\nKatz, H., & Darbishire, O. (2000). Converging divergences: Worldwide changes in employment systems. N. Y., Ithaca.\nMichael C. Harper & Samuel Estreicher(2011), Labor Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems 78(7th ed.)\nRaymond L.Hogler (2007), Exclusive Representation and the Wagner Act: The Structure of Federal Collective Bargaining Law, 58 Labor Law Journal.\nRichard R. Carlson(1991), The Origin and Future of Exclusive Representation in American Labor Law, 30 DUQ.L.REV..\nRussel A.Smith(1941), The Evolution of the “Duty to Bargain” Concept in American Law, 39 Mich. L. REV.\nWilliam E. Slimkin & Nicholas A. Fidandis (1986), Meduation and the Dynamics of Collective Bargaining.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
勞工研究所
103262006
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103262006
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
200601.pdf1.66 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.