勞動三權係為確保所有勞動者生存之基本手段，勞動三法自100 年 5 月 1 日施行以來，對於我國工會組織以及團體協商的影響甚鉅，而團結權及協商權是相輔相成的，團體協商權係勞動三權之核心，又組織工會主要目的之一係在於締結團體協約，所以工會的組織的演進也跟團體協商的發展是密不可分的。新勞動三法實施之後，新《工會法》重新定義了各種工會之類型，雖然使勞工有更多的機會依需求加入各類型之工會，卻也產生了許多同一個範圍內出現複數工會之現象；另外新《團體協約法》明定了誠信協商原則，並搭配不當勞動行為裁決制度，對於工會進行團體協商有更強力的保障，但在其中也針對工會的協商資格以及協商代表設有相當的限制。我國企業工會的涵蓋率並不高，且僱用勞工人數小於30人的企業占了全國企業家數至少7成以上，這些勞工以現行法制無法組織企業工會，於是產業工會及職業工會就成了這些勞工的歸屬，但在協商資格門檻的限制下，產業及職業工會事實上將有相當程度無法行使協商權，以致無法締結有法定效力的團體協約。另一方面，現行的協商代表制度亦有可能使工會出現惡性競爭之結果，進而造成工會協商困境以及相對弱勢工會之會員於協商過程中遭致不合理之待遇。本文參考美國及日本團體協商相關制度及針對勞、政、學三方進行訪談，建議在制度面上應維持產職業工會協商資格門檻，以確保其代表性，另一方面政府也應對於雇主團體訂定相關規範。此外，協商代表的產生可參考美國制度，以勞工選舉出來的協商代表與雇主協商，以避免工會間之爭議。同時，我國工會也應放寬自身的視野，跳脫與單一雇主協商的框架，完善發揮應有之功能，帶領我國勞資關係走向協約自治之目標。

Collective Labor rights are the basic means to ensure the survival of all labors. Since the implementation of the three collective Labor Laws on May 1, 2011, it has impacted extremely on the trade unions and operations of the collective bargaining in Taiwan. While the right to unity and negotiation are complementary, The right of collective bargaining is the core of collective labor rights, and one of the main purposes of organizing unions is to reach a collective agreement. Therefore, the operation of collective bargaining is closely related to the development of trade unions. After the implementation of the collective Labor Laws, new “Labor Union Act” redefines the types of trade unions. Labors now have more opportunities to join various types of unions depending on their need, however, the act also created the issues of the multiple trade unions in the same area. In addition, new " Collective Agreement Act " clarified the principle of good faith when bargaining for a collective agreement with the institution of decision on unfair labor practices, which may give trade unions a stronger guarantee carry out the collective bargaining, but it also has considerable restrictions on the union representative The coverage of corporate unions is not high, and enterprises employing fewer than 30 employees account for at least 70% of the country’s entrepreneurs. These workers cannot organize trade unions under the existing regulations. Then, Industrial unions and professional labor unions become these workers’ choice. However, under the threshold of the union representative, industrial and professional unions can in fact hardly exercise the right to bargaining, not to speak of concluding collective agreements. Furthermore, the system of union representation may also result in vicious competition among the trade unions, which in turn deteriorate the situation that trade unions are hard to conclude collective agreements with employers. This study refers to the systems of collective bargaining in United States and Japan and conduct interviews with labor, politics, and academia. It is suggested that the threshold of the union representative for professional trade unions should be maintained, that make multiple unions within the enterprise have representativeness to negotiate with employers. On the other hand, the government should also set relevant regulations for employers' groups. In addition, the bargaining representatives can refer to the US system, bargaining representatives elected by the workers negotiate with the employer. At the same time, trade unions should widen their own horizons, break away from the framework of the single-employer bargaining, improve their functions, and reach the goal of the autonomy of collective bargaining in Taiwan.

一、中文文獻
1.成之約(2015)，臺灣勞資關係及其法制的探討，全球化與當代勞動法-理論與實踐之比較觀察暨第四屆兩岸勞動法學術研討會。
2.成之約等(2012)，勞動政策，國立空中大學。
3.吳育仁(1995)，論美國勞工法中協商制度之法律政策分析，勞工行政，第91期。
4.吳育仁(2002)，美國勞資集體協商制度之法律政策分析，歐美研究，第32卷第2期。
5.吳育仁(2002)，美國勞資集體協商政策中經營觀理權和工作權之界線：從協商議題之分類與法律效果觀察，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第32:1期。
6.吳育仁(2010)，台灣集體協商法律政策之分析，台灣勞動評論，第2:2期。
7.李政儒等(2017)，勞動三法修正後對工會行為調查研究，勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所。
8.邱羽凡(2016)，產業工會之團體協商資格應否限制？「二分之一會員門檻條款」之檢討，勞動視野工作室。
9.侯岳宏(2016)，臺灣團體協商制度之變動與發展-以實務發展為中心，臺北大學法學論叢第97期。
10.張瑞猛等(1990)，台灣加入國際經濟策略分析，業強出版社。
11.張鑫隆(2013)，複數工會之競爭與代表性－從雇主之中立維持義務來觀察，全產總工訊第47期。
12.張鑫隆(2013)，複數工會併存及工會內部紛爭下之雇主中立維持義務，全國律師月刊2013年6月號。
13.陳月娥(2017)，107年勞資關係(含概要)，千華數位文化出版。
14.陳金福(2015)，勞工行政與勞工問題，五南出版社。
15.陳建文(2014)，「誠實協商義務與職權交付仲裁」的實務正義與規範正義，103年度工會法與團體協約法制研討會。
16.曾翔(2017)，淺析當前「複數工會」議題，全國金融業工會聯合總會會訊，第196期。
17.黃程貫(2002)，勞動法，新學林出版。
18.黃越欽(2006)，勞動法新論，翰蘆圖書。
19.劉士豪(2013)，複數工會之工會代表權初探，102年度健全我國工會法制研討會。
20.衛民(2010)，新「團體協約法」重要修正內容與對勞資關係影響之研究，國家政策研究基金會。
21.衛民、許繼峰(2011)，勞資關係：平衡效率與公平，前程文化。
22.韓仕賢(2015)，我國團體協約協商程序的法制與實務，全球化與當代勞動法—理論與實踐之比較觀察暨第四屆兩岸勞動法學術研討會。
二、外國文獻
1.菅野和夫(2012)，労働法，弘文堂。
2. 片岡曻／前田達男編(1995)，労働法，青林書院。
3.荒木尚志(2013)，労働法，有斐閣。
4.淺倉むつ子等(2011)，労働法，有斐閣。
5.盛誠吾(2000)，労働法総論・労使関係法，新世社。
6. Carrell, Michael R. & Heavrin, Christina, Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining: Private and Public Sectors, Prentice Hall(10th ed., 2012).
7. Chaison, Gary, The New Collective Bargaining (Springer Briefs in Economics), Springer (1st ed., 2012).
8. Colosi, Thomas E. & Berkeley, Arthur E., Collective Bargaining: How It Works And Why, JurisNet, LLC (3rd ed., 2006).
9. Hayter, Susan, The Role of Collective Bargaining in the Global Economy: Negotiating for Social Justice, International Labor Office (1st ed., 2011).
10. Katz, Harry, Kochan, Thomas & Colvin, Alexander, An Introduction to Collective Bargaining & Industrial Relations, McGraw-Hill/Irwin (4th ed., 2007)