英文摘要
|
This article aims to exam the argumentations on whether to establish union strike notice under the current Taiwan labor law regime. The debates over this issue focused mainly on the necessity of requiring union conduct further notice before the actual strike commences. The supporting argument points out that the general public deserves a clue of the industrial action to refrain themselves from the uncertainty. The refuting points of view, however, believe that the strike notice is inappropriate due to the unbalance negotiating power between the employer and the union. Furthermore, it emphasizes that by following the multiple legal pre-requirements to conduct a legal strike, the action itself already constitutes a pretty strong "de facto strike notice" to the employer and the general public. To shed light on this particular debate and lead to a complete discussion, the author believes the answer to the prospects of the union strike notice should not rest on a "right or wrong answer", but a "multiple choice portfolio." This paper suggests that a proper union strike notice, from the inspiration of the U.S. labor law, should weight the balance between the employer and the union with the ideology of fair economic weapon. The strike notice should, moreover, capable of bringing out the "semi-strike effect," which can stimulate the economic pressure of the actual strike and urge the conflicting parties to compromise voluntarily, as the actual strike may do. An adequately designed strike notice rule can also serve the general public's demand on prior notification of the industrial action without jeopardizing the negotiating parties. The research concludes with a bill of union strike notice for the Taiwan society. It is not the author's intention to advocate the strike notice amendment, but to utilize the bill to trigger more discussions among different augmentations. Hopefully, this article could be a fundamental reference for future related studies and bring out further dialogue regards to this debate.
|
参考文献
|
-
黃瑞明(2013)。神秘告別式之後的奇異重生──評勞資爭議處理法關於「權利事項之勞資爭議,不得罷工」的修正。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,42(1)
連結:
-
劉士豪(2016)。勞動三法修正後罷工規範之研究。國立中正大學法學集刊,51
連結:
-
鄭津津(2006)。美國勞資爭議行為正當性之探討。臺北大學法學論叢,60
連結:
-
Brudney, James J.(2018).A Taxonomy of Striker Replacement.COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J,39,555-568.
-
DAU-SCHMIDT, KENNETH,MALIN, MARTIN,CORRADA, ROBERTO,CAMERON, CHRISTOPHER,FISK, CATHERINE(2019).LABOR LAW IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORKPLACE.
-
GORMAN, ROBERT A.,FINKIN, MATTHEW W.(2013).LABOR LAW ANALYSIS AND ADVOCACY.
-
KATZ, HARRY,KOCHAN, THOMAS,COLVIN, ALEXANDER(2017).AN INTRODUCTION TO U.S. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND LABOR RELATIONS.
-
KRUGER, KENNETH F.,METZGER, NORMAN(2002).WHEN HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES STRIKE: A GUIDE FOR PLANNING AND ACTION.
-
Mironi, Moti(ed.),Schlachter, Monika(ed.)(2018).REGULATING STRIKES IN ESSENTIAL SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE ‘LAW IN ACTION’ PERSPECTIVE.
-
SLOANE, ARTHUR,WITNEY, FRED(2009).LABOR RELATIONS.
-
Weiler, Paul(1984).Striking New Balance: Freedom of Contract and the Prospect for union Representation.HARV. L. REV.,98,351-420.
-
王惠玲(2007)。歐洲聯盟國家勞資爭議行為正當性實務研析──以德國為例。勞資爭議行為論文集
-
林更盛(2016)。從華航罷工事件看幾個罷工相關的法律問題──一個德國法的觀點。月旦法學雜誌,256
-
林佳和(2005)。台灣中小企業銀行工會罷工事件──一個勞動法角度的觀察。台灣法學雜誌,77
-
邱羽凡(2009)。勞動爭議行為之意義及其與罷工糾察之關係。全國律師,13(2)
-
邱羽凡(2018)。論罷工預告義務──德國法之觀點。民用航空運輸預告制度之可行性工作坊
-
邱駿彥(2019)。爭議行為預告義務法制化之檢討。罷工法研討會
-
焦興鎧(2006)。國際勞工組織重要公約及核心勞動基準之研究。國際勞動基準之建構
-
焦興鎧(1995)。雇主雇用罷工替代者在美國所引起之勞工法爭議。歐美研究,25(2)
-
黃居正(2018)。航空運輸業罷工預告制度之規範基礎──以美國、墨西哥與加拿大之規範為中心。2018 年民用航空運輸事業罷工預告制度之可行性研討工作坊
-
黃程貫(1996).勞動法.國立空中大學.
-
黃程貫(1995)。德國勞工法中關於罷工期間「人力替代」問題之處理──兼論我國之立法可能性。政大法學評論,53
-
黃程貫(2004)。我國罷工合法要件之檢討。月旦法學雜誌,107
-
黃程貫(1989)。勞資爭議法律體系中之罷工的概念、功能及基本法律結構。政大法學評論,39
-
黃程貫(1988)。由罷工權及工作拒絕權之法律性質談勞工集體休假。政大法學評論,37
-
楊通軒(2015).集體勞工法:理論與實務.五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
-
臺灣勞動法學會(編)(2019).集體勞動法.新學林出版股份有限公司.
-
潘世偉(2007)。勞資爭議行為與美國勞資關係之發展。勞資爭議行為論文集
|