本文共分六章，計八萬餘言。 第一章為緒論，描述從事本研究的目的、範圍，以及所採取的研究方法及限制。 第二章是我國公共政策制訂模式，第一節說明公共政策的意義，執政黨的勞工政策依 據及我國勞資爭議處理政策的由來；第二節探討有關的決策理論，主要是廣博性決策 模式，漸進法策模式及綜合審查決策模式。第三節說明政黨與決策的關係，並論及中 國國民黨在我國公共政策制訂上的重要性。 第三章是勞資爭議問題分析，分成（一）勞資爭議之一般概念（二）我國勞資爭議處 理制度（三）現行勞資爭議處理制度檢討（四）勞資爭議問題未來發展趨勢。 第四章探討勞資爭議處理法之修訂背景，經過及修正草案與現行法之比較。 第五章是勞資爭議處理法修訂過程分析，分析修正草案（一）研擬階段之運件（二） 合法化階段的運作（三）黨政關係運作。 第六章結論與建議。就研究結果作出本個案的結論與建議。

勞動訴訟制度，係指基於勞動關係之特殊性，鑒於勞動者與資方在地位上之懸殊，有必要在勞動法上給予特別保障，因此有便宜、迅速、妥適等特性之一套權利救濟程序。我國雖於勞資爭議處理法訂有勞工法庭之規定，但運作仍回歸民事訴訟法，特殊程序之規定仍付之闕如，以致各界迭有建立相關制度之呼籲。民事訴訟法雖自民國七十二年起，便成立「民事訴訟法研究修正委員會」，而展開漫長的修法工作，有關財產法訴訟現已暫告段落。但司法改革雖然歷經十年餘之討論，亦有專業法庭設置之共識，但現實上似乎僅形式上之法庭存在，配合運作之規範與邏輯仍依照民事訴訟法之規定，一直不願正視勞動案件在一般民事訴訟法運作下所產生之不妥與不適。 　　既便特別法院之建立在我國有相當的困難與挑戰，但是否連一套針對勞動案件及勞動法特殊性所設計之特別訴訟程序都不在討論之列？本文先從統計數字出發，看見司法統計上雖然案件並無特別顯眼，但行政上之統計卻是正好相反。反應的正是勞動者當發生有權利受侵害之情事，不欲透過法院尋求救濟之偏好。而此偏好之原因，應可歸責於我國透過訴訟途徑成本高昂、程序繁瑣、時間過長無法即時得到救濟。 　　再從國外之立法例觀察，德國不但專門針對勞動案件訂有特別訴訟規定，甚至有專責單位（特別法院）之設置；而日本近代司法改革，亦針對勞動案件，建立起結合裁定與調解之勞動審判制度。兩者之特色皆在於強調迅速、便宜，並且導入職業團體代表參審制度，不但調和利益與法律上之平衡，亦使得結果得以更為接近社會現實與需求。 　　本文針對以上之發現，挑選幾項較為重要之議題，說明現行制度上不妥之處，並強調建立特別訴訟程序為較妥適之方式，並應已刻不容緩。 / The Labor Jurisdiction means to base on the particularity of Employment, concerning the weakness of labor. It’s needed to correspond to the special needs of Labor Law. The distinguished characteristics of it are more cheap, simplicity of procedure, proper to reality of labor. Even the article 6 of The Settlement of Labor Disputes Law regulates that ‘For adjudicating rights disputes, the court shall set up a labor court when necessary.’ In Taiwan, the procedure is obeyed the rules of ‘Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure’. The related regulation is still lack. The public opinion is demand to construct the institution of special jurisdiction. As about twenty years gone by, The Judicial Yuan in Taiwan planed to reform the judiciary, and continually finished the revise of the law of civil proceeding, but the revised Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure still neglected the importance and particularity of The Labor Jurisdiction. By discussing the situation of labor dispute and the rights disputes settled in civil courthouse, it appears that whether we need the courthouse of labor (labor tribunal) or not, the special proceeding is eager to construct. After introducing the institution of Germany and Japan, we compared the difference between Taiwan, Germany and Japan. The Labor Court of Germany (Arbeitsgericht) is absolutely independent from civil courthouse. Special procedures meet the need of The Labor Jurisdiction mentioned above. In Japan, special courthouse is violating the Institution, and the proceeding is obeyed the civil procedure law, like Taiwan. But Japan recently constructed a special Labor Tribunal System, integrated the function of decision-making and mediation. The new approach was expected to solve the problems of civil procedure, such as copious and long-term procedures. The different models have its owned features and merits, which one is the point for Taiwan to imitate? This article selected a few issue to discuss, and contented that to construct the special labor proceeding is the optimum approach to out of the predicament.