English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51572876      Online Users : 949
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/12277


    Title: 國際勞工組織對團結權之保障：兼評我國工會法
    Other Titles: International Labour Standards and Guarantee on Freedom of Association in Taiwan
    Authors: 王惠玲
    Wang, Huei-Ling
    Keywords: 團結權;國際勞工公約;工會法;Freedom of Association;ILO conventions;Labor Union Law
    Date: 2005-07
    Issue Date: 2008-12-02 15:21:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 團結權係勞動者憑以組織團體捍衛會員利益之勞動基本權，為勞動者集體基本權之基礎，不透過團結權則無以行使團體交涉權與爭議權。國際勞工組織（International Labour Organisation, ILO）為促進各國團結權之保障，特別在理事會下設置結社自由委員會（Committee on Freedom of Association, CFA），以處理相關申訴案件，至二二年底已對2,156件申訴案件作成裁定；同時藉由案件之累積，不斷充實團結權之內涵，並對公約賦予完整之解釋，使得團結權之保障有更為清晰之指標。 我國憲法雖未明定團結權之保障，但第十四條訂有一般集會結社權之規定，第十五條亦規定工作權之保障，已將之含攝在內；至於在法律層次上，則以工會法具體規範之。除此之外，並於民國五十一年批准國際勞工組織第九十八號組織權及團體協商權原則之應用公約。惟工會法之立法雖早在民國十八年即已公佈施行，然由於特殊歷史背景，工會法制遂趨向以嚴格管制為目的，集體勞動關係之發展亦陷於停頓。至今雖已解嚴超過十年以上，行政、立法甚至司法機關對團結權保障之內涵為何，仍不甚了解，以至於工會相關法令不但無法保護勞動者之組織權，反而形成工會組織與活動之障礙；行政與司法機關之見解也與國際認知大相逕庭。 反觀世界各國在人權保障全球化之趨勢下，各國內國法院不但引用公約內容，甚至直接引用結社自由委員會案例之見解或國際勞工組織相關文件作為裁判之法源，對於填補法律缺漏，強化團結權保障上，結社自由委員會之見解提供莫大助益。 國際勞工組織為國際經驗的大熔爐，對我國而言，雖非國際勞工組織之會員國，但鑒於團結權之人權保障性質，以及人權保障之全球化趨勢，並基於憲法上尊重公約之意旨，亦應盡力實踐團結權之保障。國際勞工公約所提供之立法基本準則，以及結社自由委員會眾多案例所累積形成之原理原則，適可作為我國之借鑑，因此本研究乃由國際勞工組織結社自由委員會之申訴案例出發，探討團結權之內涵，以期未來能充分實現憲法上所保障之基本權。 By making it possible to establish organizations of workers and employers and by providing them with the means to further and defend the interest of their members, freedom of association is the fundamental right for workers. Without freedom of association the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike would be meaningless. This explains why the constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has affirmed the principle of freedom of association and why, over the years, the International Labour Conference has adopted a considerable number of Conventions, Recommendations and resolutions. In addition to this standard-setting function of ILO, a special machinery for the protection of freedom of association was established in 1951. The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) is responsible for carrying out a preliminary examination of the complaints submitted from trade unions against their government. Till 2002 the CFA has examined and explained its views in more than 2150 cases. This enabled CFA to build up a very full body of principles on freedom of association. The 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, which applies in Taiwan, unlike Japanese constitution, has no special provisions deals with freedom of association for workers and right to collective bargaining (Japanese constitution article 28). But there are provisions regarding the guarantee on freedom of association and rights of assembly in general (art. 14) and the guarantee on right to work (art. 15). The right of workers and employers to establish organizations and right to collective bargaining are thus tied to prominent constitutional guarantees. And the Labor Union Law (LUL) was promulgated in 1929. However, under the specific historical background, the government adopted a restrictive policy towards unions; the LUL and its Enforcement Rules were amended to strengthen government supervision. Labor legislation is rather obstacle than protection for workers to establish trade unions. On the other hand, under the trend of globalization in protection of human rights, many countries use directly ILO convention or even CFA case-law in real situations to protect freedom of association. Although Taiwan is not a member of ILO, under the effort for the protection on freedom of association, the standards and principles set by ILO and the CFA case-law can give clear direction for the improvement in legislation and on the application of real cases.
    Relation: 政大勞動學報 18,1-31
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[勞工研究所] 期刊論文
    [政大勞動學報] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    cl18131.pdf1986KbAdobe PDF22748View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback