| 關 鍵 詞： |
教師權益保障；解聘；停聘；不續聘；資遣；聘約法律關係；非聘約法律關係；行政訴訟 |
| 中文摘要： |
教師與其他身分別人員相較，例如公務人員、學生，其權益受到侵害之救濟顯得異常的複雜與多變，不僅法律規定有所更迭，司法實務見解也一變再變，而引發學說持續的關注與討論。最高行政法院 98 年 7 月份第 1 次庭長法官聯席會議決議認為，公立學校對於教師所為解聘、停聘或不續聘之表示為行政處分，教師若有不服，於踐行先行程序後，應以學校為被告，向行政法院提起撤銷訴訟；雖然該院認為公立學校與教師間之聘約關係為行政契約關係。然憲法法庭 111 年憲判字第 11 號判決理由中推翻了最高行政法院前揭決議之見解，認為公立學校對於教師所為不續聘之表示係單純基於聘任契約所為之意思表示，與行政處分有別。最高行政法院 2023 年 6 月 15 日 110 年度上字第 19 號判決接續憲法法庭前揭見解，認為公立學校對於教師所為解聘之表示係基於聘任契約所為之意思表示，而非行政處分；教師若認學校之解聘不合法，應以學校為被告，向行政法院提起確認聘任法律關係存在之訴。另最高行政法院該號判決係在處理學校適用舊教師法第 14 條第 1 項第 13 款及第 2 項（現行教師法第 15 條第 1 項第 5 款及第 3 項）之規定，即教師聘任後，有行為違反相關法令，經有關機關查證屬實之情事，經教師評審委員會議決解聘或不續聘者，除情節重大者外，應併審酌案件情節，議決 1 年至 4 年不得聘任為教師，並報主管機關核准。據此規定，教師有舊教師法第 14 條第 1 項第 13 款所規定之情事時，教師評審委員會會作成二項決議：一為解聘或不續聘教師；二為該教師 1 年至 4 年不得聘任為教師；二項決議並報主管機關核准。關於公立學校解聘教師之法律性質與救濟管道，最高行政法院該號判決的見解已如前述；惟關於學校就教師 1 年至 4 年不得聘任為教師之決定，該號判決卻認為，主管機關之核准係使學校決定發生效力之行政處分，教師若有不服，應於踐行先行程序後，以核准之主管機關為被告，提起撤銷訴訟。因於憲法法庭 111 年憲判字第 11 號判決後，司法實務對於公立學校教師如何救濟之問題又有了重大的變革，故本文係立基於此一背景因素，欲探討該號判決後教師權益保障之問題。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
teachers' rights protection；dismissal；suspension of employment；non-renewal of employment；severance；employment legal relationship；non-employment legal relationship；administrative proceedings |
| 英文摘要： |
The remedies available to teachers for infringement of their rights appear to be unusually complex and varied when compared to those available to other categories of persons, such as civil servants and pupils/students, and not only have the legal provisions changed, but the judicial practice has also changed repeatedly, prompting ongoing scholarly concern and discussion. The Supreme Administrative Court, at its first joint meeting of presidents and judges in July of 2009, resolved that the termination, suspension, or non-renewal of a teacher's employment by a public school is an administrative act, and that a teacher who is dissatisfied with this decision should file a revocation lawsuit with the school as the defendant in the administrative court after the first step of the process; although the court considered the employment relationship between the public school and the teacher to be an administrative contractual relationship. However, the Constitutional Court overturned the Supreme Administrative Court's previous decision in the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's Constitutional Judgment No. 11 of 2022, and held that the public school's expression of non-renewal of a teacher's employment is an expression of intent based solely on the contract of employment, which is different from an administrative act. The Supreme Administrative Court, in its decision No. 19 of June 15, 2023, followed the previous opinion of the Constitutional Court and held that the termination of a teacher's employment by a public school is based on the meaning of the employment contract and is not an administrative act; if a teacher considers the termination of employment by the school illegal, he/she should file an appeal to the Administrative Court to confirm the existence of the legal relationship between the employment and the teacher, with the school as the defendant. Because of the significant changes in judicial practice regarding the remedies for public school teachers after the Constitutional Court's Constitutional Judgment No. 11 of 2022, this article examines the protection of teachers' rights and interests in the wake of the Judgment against this background.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、教師與學校之聘約法律關係
一、公立學校
二、私立學校
參、教師與學校之非聘約法律關係
肆、學校解聘教師之表示及其救濟
一、學校解聘之表示無須經主管機關核准者
二、學校解聘之表示須經主管機關核准者
伍、學校對於教師於一定期間內不得聘任為教師之決定及其救濟
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|