［勞動部站起來］
意見書 :
鑒於中運公司28年來從未中斷上岸船員勞健保的先例來看, 顯然中運公司承認迄今勞資雙方簽訂的是不定期契約, 因此, 今年七月起資方突然將上岸船員一百多人中斷勞健保的做法就是惡意違法。
實際上, 中運公司縱使想詭稱勞資雙方所簽訂契約屬於定期契約性質, 在法律上也站不住腳, 因為無論從《船員法》或是從國際勞工組織的《海事勞工公約》的整體立法意旨來看, 都是傾向於支持海員與資方所簽之約為不定期契約, 主要原因在於船員所從事之工作都與雇主慣常所不間斷的貨物運送等業務有關, 也就是說勞工所擔負的工作, 對事業單位之營運業務性質而言, 具有高度持續性之需要, 足可說明航運公司分派給船員的業務, 不論是在船上工作, 還是在岸上等待再次分派工作, 都具有不可中斷的繼續性質, 而且由於運輸航次的不同也充分表示航運公司需要持續維持固定的船員人數以便輪換, 但正因如此, 不能將船員不可能持續在同一航次工作歪曲成“定期契約”。
對照《船員法》第24條後段規定 “船員工作年資之計算應包括船員在同船舶或同一公司法人所屬或經營之不同船舶之工作年資” ; 以及同法第39條第3款規定之“船員在同一雇用人所屬船舶繼續工作滿三年者”, 可以證明《船員法》是傾向支持有利於船員的不定期契約的, 否則就難以解釋如此規定的理由。
又, 《海事勞工公約》中規範“海員(每次)在船上服務的最長期間應少於12個月”, 另按國際勞工組織對該項規範的進一步解釋是“船上不間斷服務的最長連續期限原則上為11個月”, 很清楚《海事勞工公約》之所以作這樣的規範旨在保障海員的每年一個月帶薪年假, 而且這個年假基於安全原因和健康理由是強制性的, 船員不得以任何契約形式放棄, 更不得曲解為定期契約的依據, 所以國際勞工組織曾明確聲明此項規範係為了確保能落實船員休假, 並非要求船員契約應為定期契約, 相反的, 我們正可從該項規範的內在意旨看出只有不定期契約才可能確保船員的帶薪年假被落實。
基於以上的論證, 我們可以得出結論, 中運公司與船員之間的契約關係是《勞基法》第9條第1項所規定的不定期契約, 船員在船上工作固有其特殊性, 但其特殊性顯然是建立在持續不可間斷工作的性質之上, 所以並不能被曲解成具有定期契約性質的“特定目的”的特定性工作, 這完全是兩碼事, "特殊性"和“特定性”不能混為一談。
《船員法》不僅沒有排斥不定期契約, 而且簡直可以說在立法意旨上整體而言是傾向於支持能充分保障船員權益的不定期契約的, 也就是說無論《船員法》或《海事勞工公約》都不應被斷章取義用來支持定期契約。
船員的工作內容和船東的業務特性既是具有持續不間斷的繼續性, 那就必須按照《勞基法》第9條第1項的規定排除定期契約的適用, 而認定為法定強制性的不定期契約。
實際上今年七月以前, 中運公司也是遵照不定期契約來履行船員的勞健保權益的, 而今只為了敵視中運工會為保障會員利益而作的努力, 以及為了大幅減縮成本牟取更多超額利潤, 竟然用釜底抽薪的方式, 企圖違法將勞資雙方的契約定性為定期契約, 剝奪部分上岸船員的勞健保權益, 以達逼使船員自動辭職另謀工作的可鄙目的。
對於這個案子, 作為中運公司這個公營事業的上級資方代表的經濟部, 當然不能指望它支持工會的主張和訴求。
那個主管《船員法》監督事務的交通部, 也故意含糊其詞, 拒作明確表態。
尤其古怪的是, 作為全國勞工事務最高長官的勞動部長何佩珊居然在立法院答詢說: "中運公司的勞雇關係不在我界定範圍"; "他們是定期契約或不定期契約不是勞動部界定的", 將勞工事務主管機關的法定權責推的一乾二淨 !
何佩珊部長過去曾從事過一點勞工運動, 不知道是無知還是存心裝傻, 勞動部固然無權“界定”勞資契約性質, 但絕對有權而且有責依法強制執行法定勞動契約 !
試問在經濟部和交通部置身事外的情況下, 主管勞工事務的勞動部再不管還有誰來管 ?
最後, 我對中運工會和船員們的建議是, 現在你們若想保住自身的權益, 只有一個辦法, 那就是集體到勞動部去討個說法, 不達目的, 絕不甘休。
必須要求勞動部長何佩珊本執主管職能, 依據《勞基法》第9條第1項的強制規定, 行文命令中運公司回歸不定期契約, 恢復上岸船員的勞健保。
一定要何佩珊部長當眾親口承諾, 不然大家就絕不從勞動部撤離, 警方若舉牌取締, 大不了及時宣佈就地“解散”, 但是, 大家必須賴著不動不走, 直到何部長答應依法執政, 強制資方守法。
如果勞動部下令後中運公司依然不從, 那就設法集體去圍堵公司, 直到資方依法回歸不定期契約方休。
前軍法官
工運貢獻獎
汪立俠
Stand Up, Ministry of Labor
Statement:
For the past 28 years, China Steel Express (CSE) has provided uninterrupted labor and health insurance coverage for onshore seafarers, recognizing these employment contracts as indefinite term. However, in July 2024, the company abruptly terminated insurance coverage for over 100 onshore seafarers, clearly and maliciously violating the law.
CSE argues that the employment contracts are fixed-term. This definition is not supported by the Seafarers Act and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), both of which favor indefinite terms. Shipping companies require a stable and continuous workforce because they transport goods regularly and continuously. Seafarers, whether on board or awaiting reassignment onshore, are employees of the company, regardless of whether they work on the same voyage.
This understanding of an indefinite employment contract is supported by the Seafarers Act. Article 24 stipulates: “The computation of seniority of service shall include all the years of a seafarer who works on the same ship or different ships owned or operated by the same corporate body.” Additionally Article 39-3 mentioned: "For seafarers having worked consecutively for three years on the ships owned by the same employer…” Both provisions establish the legal basis for considering employment contracts between shipping companies and seafarers as indefinite term.
Additionally, the MLC states: “The maximum duration of service periods on board following which a seafarer is entitled to repatriation – such period to be less than 12 months.” The ILO further clarifies that seafarers’ continuous service on a vessel should not exceed 11 months. The rationale behind this mandatory regulation is to ensure seafarers receive one month of annual paid leave to maintain their safety and health. This regulation should not be misinterpreted as supporting fixed term contract, but rather reflects the nature of indefinite employment contracts.
We believe that under Article 9-1 of the Labor Standards Act, the employment contracts between China Steel Express and its seafarers qualify as indefinite. The unique nature of seafaring jobs lies in their continuous, uninterrupted work, rather than any “specific purpose” that justifies a fixed-term contract.
The legislative intent of the Seafarers Act supports indefinite contracts to fully protect seafarers’ rights. Therefore, neither the Seafarers Act nor the MLC should be misinterpreted as supporting fixed-term contracts. The continuous and uninterrupted nature of seafarers’ work necessitates the application of indefinite contracts as mandated by law.
Until July 2024, CSE adhered to an indefinite-term employment and provided labor and health insurance for its seafarers. However, to undermine the union’s effort to protect seafarers’ rights and reduce costs for higher profits, the company reclassifies employment contracts from indefinite to fixed-term, forcing onshore seafarers to resign voluntarily.
In this case, government support is extremely limited. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, which supervises the company, is not supportive of the union’s demands, and the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, responsible for overseeing the Seafarers Act, also avoids taking a stance. Surprisingly, the Minister of Labor (MOL), Ho Pei-shan, evades responsibility by stating “China Steel Express’s labor relations are not within my jurisdiction” and “The nature of their contracts- fixed-term or indefinite- is not for the Ministry of Labor to define.” These statements clearly ignore the fact that it is the MOL’s responsibility to enforce lawful labor contracts.
In the absence of intervention by the Ministry of Economic Affairs or the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and without the Ministry of Labor upholding labor rights, , the only solution to protect the seafarers’ rights is a determined protest at the Ministry of Labor. Seafarers must demand that the Minster enforce CSE’s compliance with the Article 9-1 of the Labor Standards Act: resume indefinite contracts and reinstate onshore seafarers’ labor and health insurance.
During the protest at the MOL, union members will not leave until Minister Ho publicly commits to the union’s demands. Even under police pressure, the union can strategically announce “disband” without actually leaving the spot. If CSE resists complying with the MOL’s directive, the union will devise another strategy to blockade the company until their demands are met.
Wang Li-xia
Former Military Judge
Labor Movement Contribution Award
