學術產出-國科會研究計畫
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 勞動契約特別終止保護制度之檢討－以勞基法第十三條之規定為主要探討對象
The Research about the Special Protection from Unwarranted Termation for the Labor Contract作者 吳姿慧
Wu, Tzu-Hui貢獻者 勞工所 關鍵詞 終止保護制度;預告終止;通常終止;特別終止;非經預告終止;即時終止;一般終止保護制度;特殊終止保護制度;核定效力;母性保護;產假期間;差別待遇 日期 2011-07 上傳時間 2022-03-29 摘要 勞動契約特別終止保護制度之檢討 －以勞基法第十三條之規定為主要探討對象 勞動契約終止保護制度通常可分為一般終止保護制度（ allgemeiner Kündigungsschutz）以及特別終止保護制度（besonderer Kündigungsschutz）兩大 類，前者適用於一般之受雇勞工，避免雇主恣意終止勞動契約，致其喪失維繫經 濟生活所需之工資，並阻礙增進工作技能及人格自我發展之機會。我國勞基法第 11 條以下規定雇主必須具備勞基法第十一條列舉之法定事由，並遵守預告期 間，方得終止勞動契約，法條列舉事由雖僅為企業經營事由以及勞工個人因素兩 類，不過觀察實務見解可發現，透過近年判決與學說之闡釋，基本上已將勞基法 建立一個解僱社會正當性之框架，亦即除具備正當事由，解僱並需窮盡其他手段 仍無法避免之最後手段始足當之，諸如「被上訴人終止系爭勞動契約，是否符合 「解僱最後手段性原則」，應有再事研求之必要」之判決理由，一再出現，1縱 以勞工個人不能勝任終止契約，除客觀技能不足或體力不堪外，如為主觀態度不 良應指出造成公司有何實際損害或延宕，而且必須證明對其怠忽職務行為已經輔 導或勸說仍無成效，並已無其他懲處、降職或調職等衝擊程度較低之手段可資運 用，才符合解僱之正當性，2法院對於解僱案件審慎之態度，於不景氣雇主循思 樽節成本而不法解僱資深員工規避退休金，應收警世之效。 除了維護勞工之工作權益與存續保護，對於特殊族群、身份或狀態之受雇勞 工，為避免因其特殊狀態而較一般勞工容易遭受解僱，或基於不同原因有特別保 護之必要，關於其解僱事由、時間或程序另採特殊之保護規範，保護之措施因程 度不同而有底下幾種情況： 第一、勞工處於特定期間禁止予以解僱。例如對於分娩女性勞工產假期間禁止 解僱（例如我國勞基法第13 條）、遭遇職業災害之勞工醫療期間禁止解僱（例 如我國勞基法第13 條）、基於母性保護禁止解僱懷孕期間及分娩後4 個月內之 女性勞工（例如德國母性保護法第9 條）、為保護職工代表行使職權及活動禁止 對職工代表之解僱（例如德國終止保護法第15 條、企業組織法第15 條、103 條）， 或為保障身障者非取得主管機關之同意不得解僱身障者（例如德國社會法第9 章第85 條）。 第二、禁止以勞工特定身份或狀況為由予以解僱，亦即禁止歧視行為，例如禁 止因懷孕、分娩或育兒情事解僱勞工（我國性別工作平等法第11 條第2 項）、 禁止因勞工擔任工會職務而予解僱（我國工會法第35 條第1 項）或勞資爭議期 間勞工參加勞資爭議予以解僱（我國工會法第37 條）、以及為保障就業機會平 等禁止因工會會員予以解僱（參照我國就服法第5 條）。這些條文目的在避免因 勞工之特定身份或狀態造成解僱時之差別待遇，不過因我國此類條文是以身份或 1 最高法院98 台上1088、98 台上1276、96 台上2630。 2 臺中地方法院98 年度勞訴字第24 號。 狀態做為禁止之要件，故仍可能發生雇主雖不得以懷孕直接作為解僱原因，卻可 能以其他事由解僱懷孕之婦女。 第三、以鼓勵進用辦法或發生解僱時提供扶助措施做為保護手段。例如我國進 用身心障礙者工作績優機關（構）獎勵辦法鼓勵進用身障者、原住民族工作權保 障法規定職場發生就業歧視應予法律諮詢與補助訴訟費用等。 如以德國之勞動契約終止保護制度做為參照對象，如前所述，通常區分為一般 解僱保護與特別解僱保護，所稱之特別解僱保護係指上述之第一種類型，例如依 母性保護法之規定，勞工一旦懷孕即不得解僱，企業組織法對則規定具有職工代 表身份之勞工， 不得解僱， 通常稱之為絕對解僱保護（ absoluter Kündigungsschutz）。我國與之近似之現行法乃勞基法第13 條「勞工在第五十條 規定之停止工作期間或第五十九條規定之醫療期間，雇主不得終止契約。但雇主 因天災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續，經報主管機關核定者，不在此限。」 依此規定：1. 本條採取絕對禁止解僱為原則。蓋條文明定分娩後產假期間與職 災醫療期間，不得解僱2. 列舉因天災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續做 為得解僱之例外狀況3. 須經主管機關核定。核定將影響私法關係之效力，為形 成私法關係之行政處分。3 然而如果將勞基法以外之其他特別法一併列入觀察，檢視我國特別解僱保護制 度，有底下幾點值得探討之處： 一、由於第50 條規定女工分娩前後，應停止工作，給予產假八星期（妊娠三 個月以上流產者產假四星期），故第13 條停止工作期間禁止解僱應指產假期間， 不包括分娩前之懷孕期間，而性平法第11 條第2 項規定不得以勞工懷孕或分娩 為解僱理由，因性平法立法目的在於禁止性別歧視，避免對僅有女性才可能出現 之生理現象造成差別待遇，雇主如以與懷孕或分娩無關之其他理由（企業經營或 勞工行為之問題）解僱懷孕婦女，並不牴觸性平法，換言之，雇主於勞工懷孕期 間以企業經營（例如業務緊縮）或勞工之行為為由解僱懷孕勞工，既不違反勞基 法第13 條之絕對禁止解僱規定（因為未明文保護懷孕階段）亦不牴觸性平法之 規定（因為並非歧視懷孕之行為而是具有正當事由）。誠然，性平法第31 條規 定「受僱者或求職者於釋明差別待遇之事實後，雇主應就差別待遇之非性別因 素，或該受僱者或求職者所從事工作之特定性別因素，負舉證責任」課予具有較 優勢地位且掌握人事資訊之雇主較重之舉證責任，實務上也以受僱者僅須盡其釋 明責任，使處分機關或調查委員大略相信因懷孕而有遭受不利待遇之情事時，舉 證責任即轉換至雇主，4甚至有「雇主所舉事證無足以證明對勞工未有差別待遇， 足認雇主因勞工懷孕而有差別待遇」之見解，5但對於受雇之懷孕勞工，如遇到 對懷孕或育兒「感到礙眼」之雇主，企業恰又具有業務緊縮之正當事由，將因混 合動機而承受先遭解僱之壓力。 3 關於形成私法關係之行政處分參見許宗力，論規制私法的行政處分－以公行政對私法行為的核 准為中心，收錄於氏著「憲法與法治國行政」，原照出版，1999。 4 臺北高等行政法院98 簡字48。 5 如臺北高等行政法院98 訴993、高雄高等行政法院95 簡字179。 性平法禁止勞工因「特別惹眼」之懷孕遭受解僱或成為解僱之「首選」，形成 差別待遇，立法意旨確實正確，但實際個案中仍難以避免雇主隱藏歧視之真正動 基，改以其他與懷孕無關之原因做為解僱理由。性平法既然有舉證倒置之規定， 實務基本上又以只要有懷孕事實，大略指出因此原因遭到解僱，即由雇主負起舉 證責任，某程度已將勞基法第13 條禁止解僱之規定，往前擴大至懷孕階段，近 似德國母性保護禁止解僱懷孕及分娩四個月內之勞工之規定，兼之勞基法第13 條具有母性保護之意旨，關於工作位子之保護是否將絕對禁止之精神從懷孕期 間、生產期間至育兒期間，一貫延續，是一個思考方向。 其次，特別解僱保護制度原則上雖禁止解僱，但企業遭遇天災事故或破產清算 等特殊情況，實無法維繫僱傭關係，縱為特別解僱保護適用之對象或狀況，仍應 有解僱之可能。現行勞基法第13 條產假期間或醫療期間例外得解僱事由列舉天 災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續，但如歇業或清算，恐難涵攝在內，甚 值檢討。 第13 條之適用是否包括第11 與第12 條在內，乃本條另一個爭議點。有論者 主張應該只限於第11 條，不過本文傾向認為職災醫療或產假期間均有特殊保護 之必要，不因是否需預告而有差別，雇主於職災醫療或產假期間均不得解僱勞 工。當然因勞動關係之本質建立在具有期待可能性，如雙方誠信關係因勞工之嚴 重行為破壞殆盡，亦難以期待勞雇關係繼續存在，對此本條但書似應增加此種例 外狀況，不過此時雇主之解僱仍必須取得主管機關之核可。 此外行使勞基法第12 條有30 日除斥期間之限制，將造成等到第13 條禁止解 僱期間屆滿可能已逾除斥期間而無法行使第12 條，應暫時停止除斥期間之計算 或以其他方式解釋，亦為本研究之探討重點。
The research about the special protection from unwarranted termation for the labor contract Work base law and his rules for implementation agreement in party or is it must offer competent authority Chen to stipulate, stipulators with the words proclaimed in writing, there are four kinds of situations in all: The first kind of situation is the 40th regulation, because natural disaster , incident or accident, the employer when necessary admits there is the one that continues working, on vacation when must stop the labourer , but should be in 24 hours afterwards, detail the reason, submit to the local competent authority core fully . The second kind of situation depends on the regulation of article 6 of the rules for implementation, the specific work can agree on the agreement of working regularly, such as over one year person during work , should submit to the competent authority core fully . The third kind is labourer`s number that the employer is employed above 30 , should conclude the working rule in accordance with the regulation of article 70, submit to the competent authority core for announcing it publicly fully , if working rule is revised in good time , should also submit to the core fully in accordance with the 37th item 2 of rules for implementation . The last kind of situation is seen in article 84-1, to such workers with special nature as monitoring , intermission or the responsibility system ,etc., authorized the announcement by the competent authority to exclude from working in base law man-hour and is applicable to fixedly , work and employ separately and agree on working time, submit to the local competent authority core fully . Prepare against the procedure above-mentioned nuclearly, except that the first kind of situation employer Jing is since the vacation of stopping labourers , because do to the accident , can only submit to the local competent authority core fully afterwards , other three situation, is it is it employ agreement (getting specific to work agreement , get rid of legal agreement of man-hour regularly ) during or stipulate to work to involve, must after the regulation , submit to the competent authority core for fully on some agreement this of making. But if the employer has not proposed cores fully immediately , this some agreements or stipulating that because it is invalid, or influence its effect , the dispute and discussing a lot of, this text think submit to nuclear procedure that prepare against for influence the private law effect while being above-mentioned, should examine the nuclear nature that prepare against , depend on every normal purpose in France , judge one by one, unable , unsuitable to treat as the same too. It is administrative organ vs. making and organ that it is prepared against that nuclear or involve property rights of people for administrative supervision or the common means that is in charge of accusing of, for example the government office at a lower level must give to make disciplinary sanction at the same time and hand in one grade of organs core fully ; Or must propose cores fully for the private law behavior during administrative organ and individual; To the agreement between the individuals or private law relation such as the administrative organ, carrying on certain control fully through the core, the core which puts to the trouble of the base law stipulates fully that belong to the third kind of situation more. But the nuclear meaning that prepares against and legal nature, no matter the theory or the practice show the confusion , mean not applying not checking and ratifying some clause about explanation that prepare against (core but),inclined to newspaper Chen of for reference some clause, even also often see different explanations in the same clause, it belong to reason of it lie in not using with ` core fully ` law, ` check and approve `, ` agree `, ` authorize `, ` for reference `, ` put on record `,etc. term, even the same law, mother law and rules for implementation stipulate the same procedure , the mother law stipulates that submits to a higher level for checking and ratifying, but the rules for implementation are turned into and checked and approve, so among administration`s actual operation, civil court and administrative court, also each sing its punishment or judgement result adjusted commonly, for example confirm in the dispute that the private school and director appoint the relation to store in, the letter of Ministry of Education is cleared up and pointed out: Submit to the core which is in charge of the educational administrative organ for being prepared against, an important document of coming into force for director`s qualification of private school, Ministry of Education, to the case practice, is the theory concept of quoting ` the disciplinary sanction which forms the private law relation ` directly thereafter, foundation on it do set forth one`s views for being above-mentioned, but point out judgement of the Supreme Judicial Court ` only according to private school law rules for implementation 14th item 2 stipulate before not revising: ` President , director reelecting , holding a by-election, must offer and exercise authority after in charge of the educational administrative organ core fullying `, whether accurate this, mean director Yu Wei that reelects through in charge of the educational administrative organ core fullying , can`t still exercise authority , does not still exist without calling its director`s qualification , namely spurt the doubtful point. Is it submit to for nuclear to prepare against formality , come into force the important document for director qualification , namely ground the leeway to ask to hold before being, first trial Huang consider in detail , adopt one year such as Ministry of Education platform skill one word letter No. 85520669 every January 7 hurriedly, Jing admit should is it in charge of educational core of administrative organ prepare against , for private school important document of coming into force , director of qualification to submit to for, and then for the judgement that the appellant lose a lawsuit , only has not stated its bases needed of it , speed since suspicion the broken `. Dispute of the important document in order to come into force of nuclear regulation that prepares against of base law that the same situation is being also put to the trouble of, administrative organ and court judgement successively put forward different opinions, for example the letter in 75 of Ministry of Internal Affairs was cleared up and called ` regulation of article 70 of the basic law in accordance with working, public institution work regular conclusion, should submit to competent authority core for fully , and announce publicly . Hold the legal important document on agreeing with if not, rule since it take place working render a service `,but but can`t needn`t submit to court not at all levels for competent authority core of fully and after announcing successively publicly rule not working, the opinion of beginning to come into force, will announce on November 28 , 91 too that explain orders newly while working in the committee, call ` working rule of public institution should announce publicly , its content is violating pressure of the decree , prohibition regulation or other group convention applicable to this undertaking person , invalid. Ministry of Internal Affairs not former on the June 25 75 year at platform work word the letters not No. 415571 stop suitable `, the judgement of the court is inclined to the working rule and must announce publicly , but only the content has no decree of violating or forces the regulation at present, should belong to effectively the constrained labourer , been in charge of the administrative organ ing , the core has been influenced through revising fully or afterwards .關聯 科技部, NSC99-2410-H033-036, 9908 ~ 10007 資料類型 report dc.contributor 勞工所 dc.creator (作者) 吳姿慧 dc.creator (作者) Wu, Tzu-Hui dc.date (日期) 2011-07 dc.date.accessioned 2022-03-29 - dc.date.available 2022-03-29 - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2022-03-29 - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/139499 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 勞動契約特別終止保護制度之檢討 －以勞基法第十三條之規定為主要探討對象 勞動契約終止保護制度通常可分為一般終止保護制度（ allgemeiner Kündigungsschutz）以及特別終止保護制度（besonderer Kündigungsschutz）兩大 類，前者適用於一般之受雇勞工，避免雇主恣意終止勞動契約，致其喪失維繫經 濟生活所需之工資，並阻礙增進工作技能及人格自我發展之機會。我國勞基法第 11 條以下規定雇主必須具備勞基法第十一條列舉之法定事由，並遵守預告期 間，方得終止勞動契約，法條列舉事由雖僅為企業經營事由以及勞工個人因素兩 類，不過觀察實務見解可發現，透過近年判決與學說之闡釋，基本上已將勞基法 建立一個解僱社會正當性之框架，亦即除具備正當事由，解僱並需窮盡其他手段 仍無法避免之最後手段始足當之，諸如「被上訴人終止系爭勞動契約，是否符合 「解僱最後手段性原則」，應有再事研求之必要」之判決理由，一再出現，1縱 以勞工個人不能勝任終止契約，除客觀技能不足或體力不堪外，如為主觀態度不 良應指出造成公司有何實際損害或延宕，而且必須證明對其怠忽職務行為已經輔 導或勸說仍無成效，並已無其他懲處、降職或調職等衝擊程度較低之手段可資運 用，才符合解僱之正當性，2法院對於解僱案件審慎之態度，於不景氣雇主循思 樽節成本而不法解僱資深員工規避退休金，應收警世之效。 除了維護勞工之工作權益與存續保護，對於特殊族群、身份或狀態之受雇勞 工，為避免因其特殊狀態而較一般勞工容易遭受解僱，或基於不同原因有特別保 護之必要，關於其解僱事由、時間或程序另採特殊之保護規範，保護之措施因程 度不同而有底下幾種情況： 第一、勞工處於特定期間禁止予以解僱。例如對於分娩女性勞工產假期間禁止 解僱（例如我國勞基法第13 條）、遭遇職業災害之勞工醫療期間禁止解僱（例 如我國勞基法第13 條）、基於母性保護禁止解僱懷孕期間及分娩後4 個月內之 女性勞工（例如德國母性保護法第9 條）、為保護職工代表行使職權及活動禁止 對職工代表之解僱（例如德國終止保護法第15 條、企業組織法第15 條、103 條）， 或為保障身障者非取得主管機關之同意不得解僱身障者（例如德國社會法第9 章第85 條）。 第二、禁止以勞工特定身份或狀況為由予以解僱，亦即禁止歧視行為，例如禁 止因懷孕、分娩或育兒情事解僱勞工（我國性別工作平等法第11 條第2 項）、 禁止因勞工擔任工會職務而予解僱（我國工會法第35 條第1 項）或勞資爭議期 間勞工參加勞資爭議予以解僱（我國工會法第37 條）、以及為保障就業機會平 等禁止因工會會員予以解僱（參照我國就服法第5 條）。這些條文目的在避免因 勞工之特定身份或狀態造成解僱時之差別待遇，不過因我國此類條文是以身份或 1 最高法院98 台上1088、98 台上1276、96 台上2630。 2 臺中地方法院98 年度勞訴字第24 號。 狀態做為禁止之要件，故仍可能發生雇主雖不得以懷孕直接作為解僱原因，卻可 能以其他事由解僱懷孕之婦女。 第三、以鼓勵進用辦法或發生解僱時提供扶助措施做為保護手段。例如我國進 用身心障礙者工作績優機關（構）獎勵辦法鼓勵進用身障者、原住民族工作權保 障法規定職場發生就業歧視應予法律諮詢與補助訴訟費用等。 如以德國之勞動契約終止保護制度做為參照對象，如前所述，通常區分為一般 解僱保護與特別解僱保護，所稱之特別解僱保護係指上述之第一種類型，例如依 母性保護法之規定，勞工一旦懷孕即不得解僱，企業組織法對則規定具有職工代 表身份之勞工， 不得解僱， 通常稱之為絕對解僱保護（ absoluter Kündigungsschutz）。我國與之近似之現行法乃勞基法第13 條「勞工在第五十條 規定之停止工作期間或第五十九條規定之醫療期間，雇主不得終止契約。但雇主 因天災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續，經報主管機關核定者，不在此限。」 依此規定：1. 本條採取絕對禁止解僱為原則。蓋條文明定分娩後產假期間與職 災醫療期間，不得解僱2. 列舉因天災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續做 為得解僱之例外狀況3. 須經主管機關核定。核定將影響私法關係之效力，為形 成私法關係之行政處分。3 然而如果將勞基法以外之其他特別法一併列入觀察，檢視我國特別解僱保護制 度，有底下幾點值得探討之處： 一、由於第50 條規定女工分娩前後，應停止工作，給予產假八星期（妊娠三 個月以上流產者產假四星期），故第13 條停止工作期間禁止解僱應指產假期間， 不包括分娩前之懷孕期間，而性平法第11 條第2 項規定不得以勞工懷孕或分娩 為解僱理由，因性平法立法目的在於禁止性別歧視，避免對僅有女性才可能出現 之生理現象造成差別待遇，雇主如以與懷孕或分娩無關之其他理由（企業經營或 勞工行為之問題）解僱懷孕婦女，並不牴觸性平法，換言之，雇主於勞工懷孕期 間以企業經營（例如業務緊縮）或勞工之行為為由解僱懷孕勞工，既不違反勞基 法第13 條之絕對禁止解僱規定（因為未明文保護懷孕階段）亦不牴觸性平法之 規定（因為並非歧視懷孕之行為而是具有正當事由）。誠然，性平法第31 條規 定「受僱者或求職者於釋明差別待遇之事實後，雇主應就差別待遇之非性別因 素，或該受僱者或求職者所從事工作之特定性別因素，負舉證責任」課予具有較 優勢地位且掌握人事資訊之雇主較重之舉證責任，實務上也以受僱者僅須盡其釋 明責任，使處分機關或調查委員大略相信因懷孕而有遭受不利待遇之情事時，舉 證責任即轉換至雇主，4甚至有「雇主所舉事證無足以證明對勞工未有差別待遇， 足認雇主因勞工懷孕而有差別待遇」之見解，5但對於受雇之懷孕勞工，如遇到 對懷孕或育兒「感到礙眼」之雇主，企業恰又具有業務緊縮之正當事由，將因混 合動機而承受先遭解僱之壓力。 3 關於形成私法關係之行政處分參見許宗力，論規制私法的行政處分－以公行政對私法行為的核 准為中心，收錄於氏著「憲法與法治國行政」，原照出版，1999。 4 臺北高等行政法院98 簡字48。 5 如臺北高等行政法院98 訴993、高雄高等行政法院95 簡字179。 性平法禁止勞工因「特別惹眼」之懷孕遭受解僱或成為解僱之「首選」，形成 差別待遇，立法意旨確實正確，但實際個案中仍難以避免雇主隱藏歧視之真正動 基，改以其他與懷孕無關之原因做為解僱理由。性平法既然有舉證倒置之規定， 實務基本上又以只要有懷孕事實，大略指出因此原因遭到解僱，即由雇主負起舉 證責任，某程度已將勞基法第13 條禁止解僱之規定，往前擴大至懷孕階段，近 似德國母性保護禁止解僱懷孕及分娩四個月內之勞工之規定，兼之勞基法第13 條具有母性保護之意旨，關於工作位子之保護是否將絕對禁止之精神從懷孕期 間、生產期間至育兒期間，一貫延續，是一個思考方向。 其次，特別解僱保護制度原則上雖禁止解僱，但企業遭遇天災事故或破產清算 等特殊情況，實無法維繫僱傭關係，縱為特別解僱保護適用之對象或狀況，仍應 有解僱之可能。現行勞基法第13 條產假期間或醫療期間例外得解僱事由列舉天 災、事變或其他不可抗力致事業不能繼續，但如歇業或清算，恐難涵攝在內，甚 值檢討。 第13 條之適用是否包括第11 與第12 條在內，乃本條另一個爭議點。有論者 主張應該只限於第11 條，不過本文傾向認為職災醫療或產假期間均有特殊保護 之必要，不因是否需預告而有差別，雇主於職災醫療或產假期間均不得解僱勞 工。當然因勞動關係之本質建立在具有期待可能性，如雙方誠信關係因勞工之嚴 重行為破壞殆盡，亦難以期待勞雇關係繼續存在，對此本條但書似應增加此種例 外狀況，不過此時雇主之解僱仍必須取得主管機關之核可。 此外行使勞基法第12 條有30 日除斥期間之限制，將造成等到第13 條禁止解 僱期間屆滿可能已逾除斥期間而無法行使第12 條，應暫時停止除斥期間之計算 或以其他方式解釋，亦為本研究之探討重點。 dc.description.abstract (摘要) The research about the special protection from unwarranted termation for the labor contract Work base law and his rules for implementation agreement in party or is it must offer competent authority Chen to stipulate, stipulators with the words proclaimed in writing, there are four kinds of situations in all: The first kind of situation is the 40th regulation, because natural disaster , incident or accident, the employer when necessary admits there is the one that continues working, on vacation when must stop the labourer , but should be in 24 hours afterwards, detail the reason, submit to the local competent authority core fully . The second kind of situation depends on the regulation of article 6 of the rules for implementation, the specific work can agree on the agreement of working regularly, such as over one year person during work , should submit to the competent authority core fully . The third kind is labourer`s number that the employer is employed above 30 , should conclude the working rule in accordance with the regulation of article 70, submit to the competent authority core for announcing it publicly fully , if working rule is revised in good time , should also submit to the core fully in accordance with the 37th item 2 of rules for implementation . The last kind of situation is seen in article 84-1, to such workers with special nature as monitoring , intermission or the responsibility system ,etc., authorized the announcement by the competent authority to exclude from working in base law man-hour and is applicable to fixedly , work and employ separately and agree on working time, submit to the local competent authority core fully . Prepare against the procedure above-mentioned nuclearly, except that the first kind of situation employer Jing is since the vacation of stopping labourers , because do to the accident , can only submit to the local competent authority core fully afterwards , other three situation, is it is it employ agreement (getting specific to work agreement , get rid of legal agreement of man-hour regularly ) during or stipulate to work to involve, must after the regulation , submit to the competent authority core for fully on some agreement this of making. But if the employer has not proposed cores fully immediately , this some agreements or stipulating that because it is invalid, or influence its effect , the dispute and discussing a lot of, this text think submit to nuclear procedure that prepare against for influence the private law effect while being above-mentioned, should examine the nuclear nature that prepare against , depend on every normal purpose in France , judge one by one, unable , unsuitable to treat as the same too. It is administrative organ vs. making and organ that it is prepared against that nuclear or involve property rights of people for administrative supervision or the common means that is in charge of accusing of, for example the government office at a lower level must give to make disciplinary sanction at the same time and hand in one grade of organs core fully ; Or must propose cores fully for the private law behavior during administrative organ and individual; To the agreement between the individuals or private law relation such as the administrative organ, carrying on certain control fully through the core, the core which puts to the trouble of the base law stipulates fully that belong to the third kind of situation more. But the nuclear meaning that prepares against and legal nature, no matter the theory or the practice show the confusion , mean not applying not checking and ratifying some clause about explanation that prepare against (core but),inclined to newspaper Chen of for reference some clause, even also often see different explanations in the same clause, it belong to reason of it lie in not using with ` core fully ` law, ` check and approve `, ` agree `, ` authorize `, ` for reference `, ` put on record `,etc. term, even the same law, mother law and rules for implementation stipulate the same procedure , the mother law stipulates that submits to a higher level for checking and ratifying, but the rules for implementation are turned into and checked and approve, so among administration`s actual operation, civil court and administrative court, also each sing its punishment or judgement result adjusted commonly, for example confirm in the dispute that the private school and director appoint the relation to store in, the letter of Ministry of Education is cleared up and pointed out: Submit to the core which is in charge of the educational administrative organ for being prepared against, an important document of coming into force for director`s qualification of private school, Ministry of Education, to the case practice, is the theory concept of quoting ` the disciplinary sanction which forms the private law relation ` directly thereafter, foundation on it do set forth one`s views for being above-mentioned, but point out judgement of the Supreme Judicial Court ` only according to private school law rules for implementation 14th item 2 stipulate before not revising: ` President , director reelecting , holding a by-election, must offer and exercise authority after in charge of the educational administrative organ core fullying `, whether accurate this, mean director Yu Wei that reelects through in charge of the educational administrative organ core fullying , can`t still exercise authority , does not still exist without calling its director`s qualification , namely spurt the doubtful point. Is it submit to for nuclear to prepare against formality , come into force the important document for director qualification , namely ground the leeway to ask to hold before being, first trial Huang consider in detail , adopt one year such as Ministry of Education platform skill one word letter No. 85520669 every January 7 hurriedly, Jing admit should is it in charge of educational core of administrative organ prepare against , for private school important document of coming into force , director of qualification to submit to for, and then for the judgement that the appellant lose a lawsuit , only has not stated its bases needed of it , speed since suspicion the broken `. Dispute of the important document in order to come into force of nuclear regulation that prepares against of base law that the same situation is being also put to the trouble of, administrative organ and court judgement successively put forward different opinions, for example the letter in 75 of Ministry of Internal Affairs was cleared up and called ` regulation of article 70 of the basic law in accordance with working, public institution work regular conclusion, should submit to competent authority core for fully , and announce publicly . Hold the legal important document on agreeing with if not, rule since it take place working render a service `,but but can`t needn`t submit to court not at all levels for competent authority core of fully and after announcing successively publicly rule not working, the opinion of beginning to come into force, will announce on November 28 , 91 too that explain orders newly while working in the committee, call ` working rule of public institution should announce publicly , its content is violating pressure of the decree , prohibition regulation or other group convention applicable to this undertaking person , invalid. Ministry of Internal Affairs not former on the June 25 75 year at platform work word the letters not No. 415571 stop suitable `, the judgement of the court is inclined to the working rule and must announce publicly , but only the content has no decree of violating or forces the regulation at present, should belong to effectively the constrained labourer , been in charge of the administrative organ ing , the core has been influenced through revising fully or afterwards . dc.format.extent 115 bytes - dc.format.mimetype text/html - dc.relation (關聯) 科技部, NSC99-2410-H033-036, 9908 ~ 10007 dc.subject (關鍵詞) 終止保護制度;預告終止;通常終止;特別終止;非經預告終止;即時終止;一般終止保護制度;特殊終止保護制度;核定效力;母性保護;產假期間;差別待遇 dc.title (題名) 勞動契約特別終止保護制度之檢討－以勞基法第十三條之規定為主要探討對象 dc.title (題名) The Research about the Special Protection from Unwarranted Termation for the Labor Contract dc.type (資料類型) report
