我國民間團體調處勞資爭議的功能與困境：新勞資爭議處理法施行前後之比較
| Autor: | WANG,MEI-JHEN, 王美珍 |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2012 |
| Druh dokumentu: | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Popis: | 100 The Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) introduced a system of commissioning civil intermediary groups to resolve labor disputes. The Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes was amended on July 1, 2009, which took effect on May 1, 2011, and the legal dispute resolution system was under overhaul. This research explores the functions that these groups performed, and the difficulties, they encountered, before and after the amendment. The researcher interviewed ten intermediary groups in major counties and cities to collect data and information, including original documents and recorded conversation with their relevant staff. The result shows that the expertise and neutrality of the persons who, provided by groups, deal with labor disputes has been under-qualified. These groups are always short of financial resources. Nevertheless, before the Act was amended, they had resolved a large amount of disputes by practicing “conciliation,” an informal or extralegal means. It had greatly contributed to the government in respect of stabilizing labor relationship. Since 2004, the CLA has changed the measure of financing these groups from a lump-sum to a case-based subsidy. In addition, the government’s commissioning became multiple through allowing civil organizations other than dispute-resolution-specific groups to participate in this practice. Since then, the financial condition of intermediary groups began to further aggravate due to the dispersion of the subsidy, and the conciliation became uneven in quality. It is also found that after the amendment of the Act, dispute conciliation was changed into mediation, but the government’s subsidy based on case by case remains unchanged. If labor disputants do not choose an intermediary group to provide independent mediators, these groups would not survive. It concludes that if the expertise and neutrality of the independent mediators provided by intermediary groups will not be improved, and the government’s subsidy remains on the basis of case by case, the function of intermediary groups will be shrunk. It suggests to the government that it should provide groups with administrative guidance to select independent mediators, develop a system of mediator certification, provide groups with enough financial resources, and allow the group’s mediation records in the name of government. It suggests intermediary groups that they should recruit more enthusiastic volunteers to participate in dispute resolution, operate independently, raise their popularity, and foster mediation expertise. |
| Databáze: | Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations |
| Externí odkaz: |
|