Search

臺灣自1992 年制定就業服務法以來，對於白領與移工（藍領外籍工作 者）給予不同規範，為了確保國人之就業機會，政府對於移工採行聘僱許可 制，嚴格控管移工名額，並對其來臺工作期間年限、跨業轉換進行限制，並 僅能訂立定期契約，於期滿前轉換工作方面採取「原則禁止，例外許可」規 定，僅允許移工於符合就業服務法第59 條所訂4 款情形或合意接續聘僱下申 請期滿前轉換雇主或工作，在自由轉換雇主上，產生充滿階級主義色彩的 「白領從寬、藍領從嚴」差異管制結果。在法規適用上，因移工常因難以取 得不可歸責於自己之證據而無法適用轉換程序，或是受到轉換期間的限制而 冒著逾期未被新雇主聘僱而遭遣返回國之風險，形同不具有轉換雇主之自 由。準此，本文首先就移工轉換雇主或工作之法規範與政策變遷為介紹，說明其轉換路徑主要可分期滿前不可歸責於移工事由、合意轉換以及期滿轉換 為三種，並分析此三種轉換路徑於實務上之適用與所生困境，以及就業服務 法規範已與國際勞工組織於1975 年通過「第143 號移工濫用限制及平等機會 與待遇促進公約」，以及聯合國大會於1990 年通過的「保護所有移工及其家 庭成員權利國際公約」對於移工職業自由之保障相悖，本文認為若欲維持補 充性與暫時性之外籍勞工政策原則，而限制移工應訂立定期契約，惟為兼顧 政策目的與移工人權，至少應在目前的定期契約框架下，放寬移工終止原契 約、轉換新雇主之權利，而不應以就業服務法第53 條與第59 條為嚴苛之限 制。長遠之改革應從現行之客工制度逐步朝向移工制度，走向移工得自由轉 換雇主的修法方向前進。 The Employment Service Act was designed to regulate white-collar and migrant workers (blue-collar migrant workers) in different ways since it was enacted in 1992. In order to protect nationals’ employment opportunities, the government adopts an employment permit system to controls the number of migrant workers strictly, restricting their working period and signing fixed term contracts, maintaining the same type of job in their original industry when job transferring. Also, the government prohibits blue-collar migrant workers from applying to transfer jobs before the expiry of employment, unless they meet four requirements of Article 59 of the Employment Service Act. However, blue-collar migrant workers often face difficulty to meet these four requirements. Besides, Employment Service Act also sets a period limit for employment transferring and the government controls the number of migrant workers, which makes it more difficult for migrant workers to transfer. Many migrant workers have to take risk of deportation to transferring job within the legal period. These phenomenon shows different level of regulation be-tween white-collar and blue-collar migrant workers in Taiwan, which means the latter have no freedom of employment transferring. In Summary, this article introduces regulations and policy changing of shifting to work for a new employer or to engage in new work at first and then explains three ways of employment transferring which includes circumstances not attributable to the employed foreign worker, transferring by consent and expiry transferring. The article then analyses the difficulty of applying to regulations of these three ways in practice. At last, considering the government has not yet follow ILO’s Migrant Workers Convention No.143 and ICMW to grant migrant workers freedom of transferring in Employment Service Act, and taking account of supplementary and temporary foreign labor policy purpose and human rights of migrant workers, the article offers short-term and long term suggestion: loosen up restrictions on migrant workers’ right to terminate contract and transferring in the short term. Long-term reforms should gradually move from current guest worker system to real migrant worker system, and amend the law to achieve freely transferring in practice.

我國職業工會自2011 年新勞動三法實施後，逐步朝向自主化與多元化的發展，並發展出不同於以往勞健保職業工會模式的工運路線，亦有進行罷工之事例出現，此均讓職業工會適用罷工規範的相關問題開始受到矚目。勞 資爭議處理法第54 條第一項規定：「工會非經會員以直接、無記名投票且經全體過半數同意，不得宣告罷工及設置糾察線。」此一規範限制工會於宣告罷工前，應先經過罷工投票且取得全體工會會員過半數同意。由於職業工會具有「跨廠場、跨企業」以及「結合相關職業技能之勞工」二大特點，職業工會應如何在罷工投票中適用「全體過半數」之規範，迭生爭論。本文分析德國法上相關討論，釐清罷工投票程序的目的在於實現工會民主，故「全體會員過半數」應以爭議範圍中的工會會員為全體會員的範圍，而違反罷工投票規範應屬工會違反對於會員的義務，不應導出罷工違法以及讓雇主取得對 於工會或勞工請求損害賠償之權利。現行勞資爭議處理法第54 條第一項將罷工投票規範置於勞資爭議處理法的爭議行為章之中，實有導引讓人誤解罷工投票之組織（工會）內部效力要件為外部效力之問題，故立法上應將罷工投票事項回歸為工會依章程自主所保障的權限，以落實工會內部的直接民主，而不宜再將規範工會與其會員間的事項與勞資爭議處理法中的罷工合法要件 併列，造成不當限制工會與勞工之罷工權的結果。 Since the latest collective labor laws came into effect in 2011, craft unions which used to take care of the labor insurance and health insurance in the past, now become more independent and diverse, and even lead strikes. As a result, this phenomenon raises issues about how the procedural requirement for a strike to be applied on craft unions. Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes provides “A craft union shall not call a strike and set up a picketing line unless a strike has been approved by more than half of the members in total via direct and secret balloting,” which means a craft union should hold a poll, and get more than half of members’ approval before calling for a strike. However, professional unions are consist of members whose occupations are same, but from different enterprises. Therefore, how should “half of members’ approval” from a professional union be counted? Through analyzing German laws, this paper clarifies that the purpose of voting procedures is fulfilling “democracy in craft unions.” Therefore, the base number of “over half of members’ approval” should only include the number of members concerning the instant dispute. In addition, defying such procedure only resulted when a union violates its obligation toward members. Employers cannot claim for any compensation resulting violation of the procedural requirement of a strike. Due to placing Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes in the chapter of the Industrial Action, people often misunderstand the voting procedure as an issue of external rather than internal effect. Hence, the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes should not regulate the relationship of a craft union and its members, as it will unreasonably limit the right to strike of a craft union and its members. Article of the craft union should have the full autonomy in regulating the procedure of vote to strike in order to achieve the goal of direct democracy in a craft union.