我國勞動訴訟之實證研究──以第一審訴訟之審理與終結情形為中心（下）

Abstract

本文旨在針對我國勞動訴訟踐行「實證研究」，考察全國第一審民事法院於一九九六年至二○○六年關於審理勞工案件之表現。本文所採取之實證考察視野，除了在究明我國勞動訴訟之運作現況外，亦將關懷之重心置於三個主要問題意識。首先，勞工在訴訟中所受之處遇為何？其次，勞動訴訟與一般普通財產權訴訟相較，在數個重要之觀察指標上，是否呈現特殊之現象？最後，我國目前所設置「勞工專庭」之具體成效如何？本文發現，法院對勞動訴訟之審理，並未較普通財產權訴訟之審理更為冗長。勞工請求給付之勝訴率，與一般請求金錢給付之訴之原告勝訴率相較，亦未出現偏低之問題。不過，勞工對於其在第一審所受之敗訴判決，卻提出甚多欠缺實益之上訴。最為顯著的發現係，設有勞工專庭之法院，不論係在「案件審理時間」、「上訴率」或「上訴維持率」等指標上，其表現均未優於未設有勞工專庭之法院。筆者認為我國現行「勞工專庭」的具體落實程度，有全面檢討之必要。本文期待能藉由此實證研究之踐行，發掘勞動訴訟在我國民事審判機制下之運作實況，並藉此提供我國關心勞動審判機制之論者，於開展其相關論述時之實證基礎，以進一步提升我國關於設置特別勞動審判制度必要性之論述深度，作為研議未來可能改革方向之參酌。

This article reports the results of an independent empirical legal study on labor litigation in Taiwan. In addition to clarifying the litigation realities concerning labor disputes, this article examines this subject from three perspectives. First, how do laborers fare in the litigation process? Second, is labor litigation different from ordinary civil litigation, in terms of adjudication process as well as case outcome? Third, do the courts with “specialized labor judges” perform better than the courts without? After analyzing the data on all labor cases terminated from 1996 to 2006, this study finds that labor-plaintiffs obtain many more victories than employer-defendants in trial court while the losing labor-plaintiffs file more frivolous appeals. This study also shows that labor litigation proceeds at a slightly speedier pace than ordinary civil litigation, contrary to what some commentators have alleged. Most significantly, the courts with specialized labor judges do not perform better than the courts without such judges, either in terms of the time needed for case disposition, the percentage of appeals taken from their judgments, or the likelihood that their judgments are affirmed by the appellate courts. This result indicates that the device of establishing specialized labor judges does not realize its intended purpose in actual practices. This article argues that the current debate on the desirability of establishing an independent labor court system should take the litigation realties into consideration rather than simply implanting foreign devices.