Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 416-438). Also available on the Internet.

近年來，「訴訟外紛爭解決制度」（Alternative Dispute Resolution，ADR）被認為具有調和傳統社會觀念與現代法律之功能，在勞資爭議事件中，ADR制度尤為重要，係因調整事項勞資爭議並無法用訴訟途徑解決，若是遇到協商僵局時，傳統上僅能用爭議行為來進行實力對抗，以尋求新的團體協約之簽訂，而調解與仲裁制度，能夠帶來不同的爭議處理途徑，以避免爭議權之行使所帶來的負面效應。但勞資爭議處理法制中的調解與仲裁制度，既然最終目的係簽訂新的團體協約，原則上程序之開始應以雙方之合意為主，而現行我國法制乃至於ILO之意見及世界各國立法例，均有所謂強制仲裁與強制調解之制度存在。行政機關得以職權發動仲裁或調解使雙方進入程序，次藉由和平義務的維持而使勞資雙方重行進入談判桌，乃至於無法行使爭議權之合理性何在？我國制度設計上是否合理？此乃本文所欲討論之重點。 藉由比較我國與 ILO 之文獻、澳洲與新加坡立法例後，本研究發 現：（ 現：（ 1）於我國法制中，可能妨礙到爭議權之行使者應以強仲裁為主而 ILO 近年來對於行政機關介入勞資爭議，以強制仲裁與妨礙結社自由間所劃出 的界線即為定「必要服務行業 」之範圍，界定標準乃是「爭議行為使將 對於生命、人身安全健康或是整體個財產法益立即危險」甚為具體；反觀我國勞資爭議處理法中發動強制仲裁之條件並不盡想、明確。（ 體；反觀我國勞資爭議處理法中發動強制仲裁之條件並不盡想、明確。（ 2） 現行法中有部分強制仲裁的立甚為不當，並符合 ADR 之理論與功能，依據 ILO 之標準，亦有妨礙結社自由的可能性。（ 之標準，亦有妨礙結社自由的可能性。（ 3）雖不宜全面引進，但澳洲與新 加坡的立法例，應對我國勞資爭議處理制能有所啟發；由其是在調解度上，該制度為我國解決勞資爭議的主力本文建賦予程序更強能 / The purpose of this study was to investigate compulsory arbitration and mandatory mediation in the Act for Settlement of Labor -Management Disputes. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) was considered to have a function reconcile the traditional and modern concept of the laws society. ADR system was particularly important in incident of the labor disputes, because these disputes interest cannot be solved by litigation. When negotiations have reached an impasse, however, a strike may make difference by collective arbitration and mediation avoid the side effect by act of right to dispute. But administrative organization may apply compulsory arbitration and mandatory mediation to make both parties to reach the mutual agreemen t, or put out the negotiation between an employer and trade union. The major topic of this study would be the evaluation of ADR system design. Compared to the ILO’s publications, ACT from Australia and Singapore, this study found that : (1) Compulsory arbi tration may impede freedom of association. ILO,in recent years, the executive intervention for labor disputes to compulsory arbitration and hinder freedom of association between the boundary is drawn to define scope of "essential services ", defined in the standard but " life, personal safety, health or property " very specific; instead that our approach in labor disputes to compulsory arbitration of conditions to launch, on the other hand, was not quite explicit. (2) Current law in the legisl ative part of the compulsory arbitration was very inappropriate and not incompatible theory of the ADR, in accordance with standards of the ILO, also hinder possibility freedom of association. (3) Legislation Australia and Singapore should bring some inspiration to our legal system, especially, mandatory mediation should be main strength of the system to resolve the labor disputes. It is suggested that ADR program should be empowered to provide the suggestion of this matter.