試論勞動三法於勞資衝突中扮演之角色 - 以 C 公司勞資衝突個案為例

Abstract

勞動三法(工會法、團體協約法、勞資爭議處理法)自 2010 年三讀通過，2011 年正式實施至今，勞資關係仍未跳脫既衝突又合作之微妙關係，以往單純的勞資關係也因為政經環境的改變、產業經營的變化、媒體資訊的迅速傳遞及勞工意識的高漲，產生了不同的面貌。

本研究旨在透過檔案文件分析法及文獻分析法，探討勞動三法於台灣首例空服員罷工個案中之實際運作過程，了解工會法允許複數工會、團體協約法禁搭便車條款、勞資爭議處理法強制仲裁對本個案之影響，佐以勞、資、政三方及工會在個案中所扮演之角色，進而探討勞資建立長期夥伴關係之可能性。 根據歷史事件回顧與檔案檢視的結果發現，近來勞資爭議事件似有隨修法而遞增的趨勢，足見確實達到工會法賦予個別勞工集結權以取得與資方對等交涉抗衡的效果，然而複數工會的制度卻可能造成勞勞相爭之矛盾；在團體協約法部分，雖可透過勞資雙方締結協約穩固雙方關係，卻也可能因為雙方對協約一詞認知不同而造成誤解，而禁搭便車條款更有與同工同酬概念相左之疑慮；政府是否能公允兼顧資方權益及勞工 爭議權，則是勞資爭議處理法值得各方商榷之處。

然而勞資關係冰凍三尺非一日之寒，在現今勞資相處模式已轉變，除了公司資金結構會影響勞資關係運作方式外，社會輿論的氛圍及媒體催化了工會所營造勞方利益被剝奪的感覺，若勞資及工會三方不思改變、政府立法無法與時俱進，則不信任感恐侵蝕長期的夥伴關係。

本研究建議資方應以勞資共榮為目的，不以弱化工會為手段，透過人資部門深耕勞資關係及長期經營工會互動；而工會應調整既有勞工運動之步調，將罷工視為最後手段而非目的，避免罷工政治化；在政府端應公允地看待法律所容許的彈性空間，建立符合公平正義之勞資協商平台，這才得以建構三贏之夥伴關係。Since the formal implementation of the three Basic Labor Acts (Labor Union Act, Collective Agreement Act, and Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes) in 2011, labor relations have not been able to transform from the original delicate relationship of a conflicting and yet cooperative one. However, the previously unsophisticated labor relations are now appearing quite different, mainly due to changes in the political and economic environment, industrial operations, and the rapid transmission of information via digital media.

This case study aims to explore the actual operation of the labor acts during the first strike case in Taiwan aviation industry by using the archives analysis and the documentary analysis methods. Among the various influential factors, Labor Union Act allows plural unions,Collective Agreement Act bans free rider terms and compulsory arbitration plays an important role in Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes. In addition, parties involved in this case are also examined thoroughly, including labor, employer, political parties and unions.Furthermore, the possibility of establishing long-term partnerships between employers and employees is also studied.

Reviewing the past events and file records, it is found that the number of the recent labor disputes has not diminished with the amendments of the acts. In fact, the Labor Union Act gives individual workers the right to engage in assembly in order to obtain the chance of reciprocal negotiation with the employers. However, the mechanism of plural unions may cause laborious conflicts. Although Collective Agreement Act can facilitate a stable relationship between the parties, misunderstanding of the term of the treaty may arise. On the other hand, the ban on free rider is even more controversial over the concept of equal pay for equal work. Whether the government can act fair dealing with labor disputes also deserves attentive consideration.

Labor relations with the employer started a long time ago and have changed along the time. The company’s capital structure may affect the way how the employer-employee relationship develops; whereas, public opinions and the media to some extent may catalyze the union-led scenario of the labor benefits being deprived. Without constant evolution and adaptation, distrust will erode the long-term partnership. This study suggests that employers should aim for common prosperity of the parties concerned instead of diminishing the union. Interactions with the union may be coordinated by Human Resources department in the long run, while unions may amend their existing labor movements and regard strikes as the last resort, avoiding any politicization of the strikes. Most important, the government should act fairly towards the tolerance of the law, and establish a consultation platform for the parties, which is in line with fairness and justice, so that a win-win partnership can be built.