教保服務人員不當管教案例暨相關法律問題探討：以新北市訴願1070120894號決定為例

Discussion on Cases of Improper Discipline of Preschool Educators and Relevant Legal Issues, with a Focus on No 1070120894 Pleading Decision of New Taipei City

10.3966/181665042019091503001

黃源銘(Yuan-Ming Huang)

不當管教 ； 幼兒權益 ； 教保服務人員 ； improper discipline ； children's rights and interests ； preschool educators

教育研究與發展期刊

15卷3期（2019 / 09 / 30）

1 - 22

繁體中文

本文旨在探討教保服務人員因「不當管教」遭解聘並被通報不適任教保服務人員所衍生的相關法律問題。本文透過法規研究、制度研究以及案例研究等途徑，輔以個案與文獻分析為研究方法，從幼兒園教保服務人員不當管教涉及法規範解釋與適用出發，考察行政爭訟案例及實務處理模式。研究中發現，實務運作缺失包括權限劃分不清、主管機關於行使裁量權時亦有怠惰裁量之嫌、教育局函告幼兒園解聘教保人員亦未通知當事人，此在組織與程序保障未盡周全。本文認為，法制施行伊始應明確機關管轄權限，主管機關應正當行使裁量權。同時，攸關憲法工作權保障宜完備組織，並恪遵正當法律程序以符法治國家保障人民權利之核心理念。

Purpose of this paper is mainly to discuss relevant legal issues derived from preschool educators being dismissed and determined incompetent for preschool educators in a written notice due to ＂improper discipline＂. This study was conducted through researches on laws and regulations, systems and case studies, as well as case and literature review. In this paper, administrative litigation cases and current practical treatment modes were reviewed from the interpretation and applicability of laws and regulations on improper discipline of kindergarten educators. It was found in this study that defects of current practices included unclear division of power. Competent authority might also exercise inactive discretion. In addition, the Ministry of Education failed to inform the related person when notifying the kindergarten of dismissing the preschool educator in writing. It was an improper act in terms of organizational and procedural guarantee. In this paper, it is believed that from the beginning of execution of laws, jurisdiction of relevant authorities shall be expressly defined. Competent authority shall exercise its discretion properly. In addition, guarantees critical to constitutional right to work should be provided with complete organization and procedures to meet relevant laws and regulations.

1. 黃源銘(2018)。教師「行為違反相關法令情節重大」案例暨相關問題探討：兼論教師申請再聘之審議運作。清華教育學報，35(1)，1-28。
   連結：
2. Cane, P.(2004).Administrative law.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
3. Elliott, M.,Beatson, J.,Matthews, M.(2005).Administrative law text and materials.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
4. Leyland, P.,Anthony, G.(2008).Textbook on administrative law.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
5. Parpworth, N.(2008).Constitutional and administrative law.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
6. Wade, H. W. R.,Forsyth, C. F.(2004).Administrative law.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
7. 王美恩(2018)。不當管教與兒童虐待的界線在哪？。長庚資訊，39(4)，17-18。
8. 吳庚,盛子龍(2018).行政法之理論與實用.臺北市:三民.
9. 吳庚,陳淳文(2017).憲法理論與政府體制.臺北市:作者.
10. 李仁淼(2017).教育法與教育人權.臺北市:元照.
11. 李建良(2018).人權概念與憲法秩序：憲法學思維方法論.臺北市:學林.
12. 李惠宗(2016).行政法要義.臺北市:元照.
13. 李惠宗(2016).法學方法論.臺北市:新學林.
14. 林錫堯(2016).行政法要義.臺北市:元照.
15. 洪家殷(2019)。法規之解釋方法與認定事實之行政規則／臺灣新北地方法院107 年度交字第 680 號判決簡評。臺灣法學，380，200-205。
16. 許育典(2017).教育行政法.臺北市:元照.
17. 陳慈陽(2016).憲法學.臺北市:元照.
18. 黃源銘(2015).基礎行政法 25 講.臺北市:一品.
19. 蕭文生(2017).行政法基礎理論與實務.臺北市:五南.