論非典型僱用關係之平等法理-以日本學說發展為中心

Abstract

我國近年從事非典型僱用勞動之人口大幅增加，但經過調查，非典型僱用勞動者之待遇，包括薪資、福利、教育訓練等等，皆不如典型僱用勞動者。又研究指出，非典型僱用勞動者在職場滿意度、婚姻、平等感甚至是身心健康等等皆不如典型僱用勞動者。長期下對於勞動者以至於國家整體發展必將產生不利之影響。\n在我國現行法律下，關於勞動者之平等保障有憲法之平等權、勞基法之男女同工同酬、性別工作平等法之男女同值同酬以及就業服務法之禁止就業歧視等規範。但對於因契約型態不同導致典型僱用與非典型僱用勞動者間之差別問題，我國法律並無相對應之規範。因此，為實踐我國憲法平等以及保障勞動者之理念，同時為使將來可能之非典型僱用平等保障立法有清晰之立論依據，即有必要將非典型僱用之相關平等理論加以釐清。\n參考諸外國立法例，美國反歧視之法制上以規範雇主不得因所謂「人之不可變屬性」以及「人之自由選擇」而對勞動者有所差別待遇。因此，在美國法上，對於何謂「人之不可變屬性」以及「人之自由選擇」之判斷即屬於重要之焦點。不可變屬性在該國反歧視之發展歷史中，從一開始之性別、年齡、身心障礙之禁止歧視，後發展至不得因勞動者之基因而給予歧視；而人之自由選擇則是不得基於例如思想、宗教、語言等等給予歧視。至於在非典型僱用之禁止歧視方面，因美國法制屬於完全尊重契約自由之故，認為勞動者與雇主間之契約選擇以非典型僱用型態為之屬於須被尊重之個人自由，因此對於因該契約型態不同而與典型僱用有所差別，採取法不加以介入之態度。\n歐洲諸國立法例，大多將對於勞動者之平等保護區分為「人權平等保障」以及「僱用型態平等保障」。前者為基於人權保障，對於從事具有相同勞動價值之勞動者，應給予相同之待遇；後者為儘管不同勞動者間與雇主之契約型態不同，但雇主仍不得基於此而對非典型僱用勞動者有不合理之不利益待遇。\n鄰國日本則與我國具有相似之文化與社會發展背景，其非典型僱用勞動者在就業市場中同樣屬於較為弱勢之一環，甚至有學者認為在日本就業市場之「僱用三神器」之下，非典型僱用勞動者之差別問題已經如同一種類似於日本憲法平等權所欲保障之「身分」歧視。日本政府於2018年6月所推行之「勞動方式改革」中，將解決非典型僱用勞動者與典型僱用勞動者間之差別問題列為主要之修法對象，並分別針對部分工時、定期契約以及派遣勞動者與相對應之典型僱用勞動者之差別問題做出立法規範。\n同時，日本學說對於非典型僱用平等立法背後之法理論，也有相當細緻之討論。如同歐洲諸國之立法例，有學者認為應將勞動者之平等保障，區分為「人權之平等保障」與「僱用型態之平等保障」；有學者則認為此二者不應加以區分，而應以雇主對於非典型僱用勞動者之作為或不作為是否具有合理性為是否屬於不合法之差別判斷依據。\n藉由釐清非典型僱用平等保障之法理論依據，對於我國實踐憲法以及創造更加良善之勞動環境具有相當之重要性，本論文之重心即為介紹日本非典型僱用平等學說之發展與不同學說間之比較。

This thesis explicates the developing theories of atypical employment equality in Japan. Given the three noted characteristics of the Japanese employment system, some scholars argue that the difference between the two types of workers contradicts the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Japan. The Work Style Reform Bill enacted by the Japanese government takes account of this issue, and it also makes specific regulations regarding working hours, fixed-term employees, and dispatched workers based on the working conditions between different workers. While discussing the jurisprudence of regulating atypical work, some Japanese scholars believe that the equal protection of workers should be divided into two kinds: “human rights” and “types of employment.” However, other scholars argue that the two cannot be distinguished and such protection should depend on whether the actions the employers take on atypical workers are appropriate and just.\nTaiwan is in a similar situation to Japan: its atypical workers are also in weak bargaining positions. Yet, there is no corresponding regulation concerning the difference between typical and atypical workers based on the varied types of contracts in Taiwan. When it comes to equality in employment, other than the ROC Constitution, the Labor Standards Act and Act of Gender Equality in Employment guarantee that male and female workers shall receive equal wages for equal work. The Employment Service Act also prohibits discrimination against any job applicant or employee. Despite the increased number of people engaged in atypical employment, the treatment of atypical workers is not comparable with typical workers regarding pay, welfare, employee training, etc. On top of this, atypical workers often experience inequity, low job satisfaction, poor mental health. This situation may have an adverse effect on workers and national development in the long run. For better equal employment opportunities through legislation in the near future, it is essential to elucidate the relevant theories apropos of atypical employment.