職場霸凌的法律定義及處理法制之潛在選項──臺灣法現況及美國法之啟發

Workplace Bullying Legal Definition and Potential Implementing Mechanisms: Inspiration from Taiwan's Status Quo and the U.S. Law

傅柏翔(Bo-Shone Fu)

職場霸凌 ； 合理職場管理 ； 合理人際摩擦 ； 美國健康工作場所草案 ； 積極抗辯 ； Workplace Bully ； Reasonable Management ； Reasonable Conflict ； The Healthy Workplace Bill ； Affirmative Defense

臺北大學法學論叢

126期（2023 / 06 / 01）

77 - 182

繁體中文;英文

本文之核心研究議題，在討論職場霸凌爭議應如何提出有效且適當之法律解方。進而研究發現，並非所有發生在職場之不受歡迎行為，都應該、適合用職場霸凌來進行法律處置，而應區別非霸凌行為（合理）、霸凌行為（不合理）、違法霸凌行為（已違法），分別進行不同處理。為進一步解析此議題，本文擬以三大核心提問，來回應職場霸凌應如何處理之問題。分別為1.何謂職場霸凌：職場霸凌之分類和定性；2.臺灣和他國目前怎麼處理職場霸凌：現況之經驗歸納；3.未來的職場霸凌應如何處理為佳：提出職場霸凌之可能模式。經歸納分析，本文發現既有法制之保障容有落差，目前法院判決亦尚未呈現穩定之定義和認定趨勢，因此若要以法律來處理，仍建議透過專法提出更開放、彈性之霸凌要件和精確之法律定義，方能有效啟動法律保障、接軌既有法律救濟體系。在此目的上，本文提出建議之法律定義，同步參考文中相關雇主抗辯，一併參酌事件背景脈絡，來判斷該嫌疑行為出現之合理性，並尋求在勞工權益以及雇主管理權間之衡平界線。本文同時嘗試提出兩種可供運行之運作管理模式，作為後續討論之參考。希望透過本文，能引發更多關於職場霸凌之討論，集思廣益以尋求臺灣職場霸凌之最適解決方案。

The core thesis of this article is that not all unwelcome workplace conduct constitutes workplace bullying that deserves legal action. While "what happens in this house stays in the house" is a popular setting for workplace conflicts, the applicability of this idea may vary according to the types of unwelcome conduct involved. To figure out how to legally and adequately handle workplace bullying issues, the author tends to reveal the solution by answering three crucial questions. First of all, what is the legal definition of workplace bullying? Second, what is the current law and policy in action on handling workplace bullying in Taiwan and other countries? Lastly, what is the tailored legal resolution to address workplace bullying in Taiwan? The comprehensive analysis of these three questions suggests that the current laws in Taiwan cannot provide sufficient coverage for all kinds of bullying. Although the court has figured its way out through case law, it is still not a meaningful mechanism that could fit the employee and employer's demands. This article thus argues that Taiwan needs a bill on workplace bullying with an open and flexible definition to include diversity of conduct. In the meantime, this bill should be equipped with proper employer affirmative defense to trigger their willingness to participate in preventing workplace bullying actively. Moreover, this paper also recommends two potential workplace bully handling mechanisms based on previous experience on related matters in the U.S. and Taiwan. Hopefully, the result and discussion in this article can shed light on the workplace bullying handling issue and continuingly sparks attention and new inspiration on this matter.

1. 焦興鎧(2020)。美國處理職場霸凌問題之法制與經驗。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，49(3)
   連結：
2. Browne, M. Neil,Smith, Marry Allison(2008).Mobbing in the Workplace: the Latest Illustration of Pervasive Individualism in American Law.Eᴍ. Rᴛs. & EMP. Pᴏʟ’ʏ J.,12,131-159.
3. Chu, Samantha Jean Cheng(2014).The Workplace Bullying Dilemma in Connecticut: Connecticut’s Response to the Healthy Workplace Bill.Cᴏɴɴ. Pᴜʙ. Iɴᴛ. L.J.,13,351-386.
4. Harris, Donald P.,Garrie, Daniel B.,Armstrong, Matthew J.(2005).Sexual Harassment: Limiting the Affirmative Defense in the Digital Workplace.U. Mɪᴄʜ. J.L. Rᴇғᴏʀᴍ,39,73-97.
5. Mao, Florence Z.(2013).Is Litigation Your Final Answer? Why the Healthy Workplace Bill Should Include an ADR Provision.J.L. & Pᴏʟ’ʏ,21,679-723.
6. Namie, Gary,Namie, Ruth(2004).Workplace Bullying: How to Address America’s Silent Epidemic.Eᴍᴘ. Rᴛs. & Pᴏʟ’ʏ J.,8,315-333.
7. Stone, Kerri Lynn(2013).Floor to Ceiling: How Setbacks and Challenges to the Anti-Bullying Movement Pose Challenges to Employers Who Wish to Ban Bullying.Tᴇᴍᴘ. Pᴏʟ. & Cɪᴠ. Rᴛs. L. Rᴇᴠ.,22,355-385.
8. Yamada, David C.(2013).Emerging American Legal Responses to Workplace Bullying.Tᴇᴍᴘ. Pᴏʟ. & Cɪᴠ. Rᴛs. L. Rᴇᴠ.,22,329-356.
9. 田雅心(2012)。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所。
10. 李瑞敏(2020)。淺談職場霸凌之雇主責任。勞動議題研討會
11. 周兆昱(2021)。科技部委託國立中正大學研究科技部委託國立中正大學研究,科技部。
12. 林良榮(2013)。你（妳）被霸凌了嗎？淺談我國職場霸凌之法律問題（上）。中鋼勞工月刊，170
13. 林佳和(2014)。Mobbing：勞工人格權之特殊侵害型態。勞動與法論文集 III－國家與勞動市場管制、勞動契約
14. 邱駿彥(2013)。職場霸凌之法律問題探討。萬國法律雜誌，188
15. 施凱勝(2022)。國立臺北大學法律學系。
16. 徐婉寧,仲琦(2021)。職場霸凌所致之精神疾病與職業災害－以日本職災認定基準最新動向為借鏡。月旦法學雜誌，318
17. 張義德(2021)。職場霸凌的勞動法課題－以日本法為借鏡。東吳勞動法論壇第二回
18. 郭玲惠(2013)。正視職場霸凌、拒絕職場霸凌。就業安全環環扣－正視職場暴力，拒絕職場霸凌研討會
19. 陳信安(2021)。國立中正大學法律學系。
20. 傅柏翔(2022)。職場性騷擾制度之細緻化與程序再進化挑戰：雇主為加害人之爭議初探。萬國法律雜誌，246
21. 焦興鎧(2021)。對國際勞工組織第 190 號禁絕工作領域暴力與騷擾公約之評析。政大法學評論，164
22. 華育成(2021)。國立政治大學法律學系。
23. 葉佳倫,王安祥(2021)。我國職場霸凌預防制度之研究。勞資關係論叢，23(2)
24. 劉士豪(2013)。解析德國職場霸凌立法規範，以探討我國政府、企業責任、及立法防制策略。就業安全環環扣－正視職場暴力，拒絕職場霸凌研討會
25. 鄭津津(2020)。職場霸凌。月旦法學教室，216