A Case Study of the Labor Dispute between the Taiwan Power Company and It''s Dispatched Workers of Technical Support in 2004.

• Main Authors: Tsuan-Chih Hsieh, 謝創智
• Other Authors: 衛民
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/15051554092453880513

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 勞工所 === 97 === In trends of economic development and growing needs for labor flexibility, type of dispatched labor has appeared. According to related study, administrative departments in governments do support developing dispatched labor and in fact the employer of the most dispatched labor in Taiwan is the public sector. Similar to private sector while employing dispatched labor, the public sector also encounters problems like business range, time period of employment, exploitation by the agent, discrimination, lack of employment stability, uncertain responsibility of the employer, determination on personnel, rights of punishment, endangering labor’s right to organize and etc. as well as relevant arguments due to the Government Procurement Law. In 2004, a group of dispatched workers brought an action of declaratory judgment on labor relation against Taiwan Power Company. After three years of processing, the court made the final sentence that the Taiwan Power Company won the case and no labor relation existed between two sides. Thus, different opinions and related problems in the first and second instance are key points of this respective research. In the first and second instance, the judges thought that dispatched labor remains its necessity and is considered lawful. The judge of the first instance declared Taiwan Power Company in violation of the time limit of employment and limitation on business range which dispatched labor should have evaded employer’s liability by deviant legal behavior practices and ruled that labor relation between the two sides existed. The judge of the second instance declared that before dispatched labor legalized, there should be no conclusion made on whether there should be time limit of employment and limitation on business range for dispatched labor; this respective case was not considered by the judge as deviant legal behavior practices for dispatched labor and was ruled that no labor relation existed between the two sides. The judge of the third instance made the sentence of rejection for disqualification of appeal. The research author thinks that opinions filed by the judge of the first instance who declared that there should be time period of employment and limitation on business range for dispatched labor should be supported; opinions filed by the same judge who declared that the Taiwan Power Company intentionally practiced deviant legal behavior in this individual case would not be supported by the author, neither would the opinions filed by the same judge who concluded that labor relation between the Taiwan Power Company and dispatched workers was approved of existence based on the assumption of intentionally deviant legal behavior practices. In response to growing argumentative disputes due to dispatched labor, this respective research tries to propose suggestions for solution, including implementing current laws and regulations, strictly enforcing labor inspection, clearly regulating rights and obligations by standard contracts, maintaining non-discriminatory and supplementary principles, concretely defining the joint employers’ liability, ensuring workers’ rights of organizing, reaching consensus through social dialogue, organizing irregular workers including dispatched ones, preventing dispatched labor receiving companies from intervention in decision-making by dispatched workers, and promoting good-quality image establishment of labor dispatching businesses by self-governance.