慣例及其變更作為我國認定不當勞動行為之發展與檢討

Abstract

我國不當勞動行為之裁決實務，當事人主張或裁決決定之理由，援用慣例及其變更作為構成或不構成不當勞動行為之基礎，比例甚高，第1號裁決決定即指出「企業長期代扣工會會費已成慣例，雇主為將停止代扣會費之意思表示，自非合法」本號裁決確立關於慣例之拘束力，其後之裁決更將慣例運用至會務假之給予、便宜措施之提供、甚至懲處慣例等各種類型，慣例之概念與運用對於裁決制度之重要性，可見一斑。然而從我國司法判決所提出之質疑，顯示慣例援用存有若干需要加強論述之處。 台北高等行政法院105年度訴字第1506號判決認為：「勞動裁決委員會對於資方否准會務公假所涉不當勞動行為之評價，應審認事實，併同考量會務公假之必要性，及衡量其對於資方之影響，有無目的之達成與手段之損害間顯然失衡之違反比例原則之情事。倘會務公假於其事由滿足時，即處於不可動搖之地位，則顯向勞工團結權過度傾斜，而置資方營業權之保障於不顧」。 裁決決定就慣例得否驟然取消，向來著眼於慣例之目的是否含有「穩定企業工會與雇主間之勞資關係」之功能，以雇主代扣會費之慣例為例，裁決認為雇主撤銷代扣工會會費的便利措施，可能導致工會組織的財務困難，不利勞資關係和諧的發展，自應予避免。然而面對工會會務假，在工會拒絕變更慣例雇主不可片面變更之原則下，會務假某程度處於不可動搖之地位，繼續維持慣例至何種程度可能會如判決所言「向勞工團結權過度傾斜，而置資方營業權之保障於不顧」？為求勞資平衡，慣例在何種情況下得由雇主進行變更？特別是我國以企業工會為主之特殊工會結構，攸關工會存續之便宜措施，在變更與不得變更之間，須斟酌那些要件？又，不同之慣例，變更是否應有不同之認定標準？雇主變更慣例是否即構成不當影響工會之組織或活動？均為本文探討重點。 參照德國聯邦法院近年發展，可見其對於雇主反覆之行為是否視為企業慣例之認定，似趨向較為保守，這種現象特別要置於時代背景予以觀察，以1950年代之前之勞資關係與法規狀況，與2015年代對照，企業縱使為相同之行為，在企業組織規模增大、是否有職工委員會、是否另有協議之管道、各種制度是否已經法制化不再仰賴企業慣例等，今昔大異其趣，則雇主即使於今日有相同之行為，是否成為企業慣例，自有不同評價。 本研究擬分析我國裁決案例，並參考德國見解，比較與我國之差異，特別是德國聯邦勞動法院近年較趨保守之認定，法院改變之背景為何可為參考。

In the process of development of the labor relationship, common businesses are based on the habitual repetition of acts that are specific or inaction. For example, the employer continues to pay for, or give benefits to, a specific employer without specific agreement, Wait. The use of these practices or customs can be seen irrespective of individual labor relations or collective labor relations, and has certain legal effects on the rights and obligations of both employers and employees.When the collective labor-capital relations develop or form a certain custom, the lineage has not changed for many years. For example, subsequent changes in labor-capital mutual relations over many years due to the rise of plural labor unions, the election of cadres, the change of laws and regulations, or changes in the labor unions` The employer does not like it or the employer can not accept the new demand of the trade union. The employer may not respond to the request of the trade union or fail to reach an agreement. On the other hand, the employer may cancel or terminate the interest or cheap measure given to the trade union in the past, Such as stopping the withholding of union membership dues, the cancellation of trade union clubs or restrictions on the use of space, or restrictions on the access of conference workers, as a result of improper influence, obstruction or restriction on the establishment, organization or activities of the trade unions Or cancel the propaganda channel or method of the existing multi-year recruiting members, all of which will affect the trade union organization or activities and thus the rights of the trade union (the alliance).