英美法國家對吹哨者合法爆料行為之認定：評最高法院98年臺上字第1042號判決
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[[abstract]]最高法院98年臺上字第1042號判決，因勞工舉行記者會，以言詞及張貼標語方式主動爆料並蓄意抨擊其公司收取管線補助為不義之財，認為其破壞與公司間之信賴關係，而認定公司之懲戒解雇成立。 吹哨者保護制度牽涉言論自由、個別勞工忠實義務與社會對政府或事業單位監控之公共利益（Public Interest）。而對吹哨者之保護，牽涉到如何平衡個別勞工應對雇主負忠實義務之私人利益及監督與防制政府或事業單位之違法不當行為之公共利益。 近年因美國恩隆案(Enron Corporation)發生，主要英美法系國家，美、加、英、澳等國之立法，皆加強吹哨者保護與義務。內部人員之爆料或報告，有助於盡早偵知不法行為，而減少公眾監督與調查之必要成本。近例如，美國沙賓法（Sarbanes-Oxley Act）與英國公共利益揭露法皆予規範。各規定之合法爆料行為之要件不一，有強制要求需符先在雇主內部循管道向上報告之要件者。也有強制指定爆料對象應限於能匡正該不法事宜者之官方機關者。爆料行為爭議案件之審查，應著重客觀合理性，一併考量相關互為衝突之利害事務之價值，在對爆料行為之公益上與忠實義務私利上之價值判斷需保持中立性。 Supreme Court’s decision of 2009 Tai Shan No. 1042 involves a whistle-blowing action by employee disclosing to media its employer’s extra charge on customers in the name of pipe-subsidy fee. The court approved its employer’s discharge action on the reason that the duty of loyalty has been breached. Whistleblowing is viewed as a mechanism to serve public interest in the societal control over government and large organizations. Whistleblowers have people become aware of institutional commission of illegal acts and alert general public and law enforcement officials. However, it is a delima that employees’ duty to loyalty may be absued for furtherance of personal interests during the process of whistle-blowing. Article 30 of our Labor Safety and Health Act provides similar stipulations. In common law countries, more whistle-blowing legislations have been enacted to protect the whistle-blowers, due to the aftermath of Enron collapse, for instance, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of the US and Public Interest Disclosure Act of UK. After reviewing the whistle-blowing legislations of the US, UK, Australia and Canada, the author finds that Taiwan is extremely short of whistle-blowing legislations. Even though there is no law governing the necessity in protecting whistle-blower, the courts should use their power to grant more concerns on balancing the public interest and private interest of the employers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.036 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".