臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

背景與目的：
「職業傷病」包括因工作引起的急性職業傷害事故以及因職業暴露而導致的慢性職業疾病。在現行制度中，工作者發生的傷病後，是否為「職業傷病」主要認定者為醫師與法官。然而，由於勞動基準法對於職業傷病定義與要件並未加以規定，導致爭執事件發生時，司法判決認定標準不一，造成同樣因工作而受傷，能否得雇主補償卻可能有相異的結果。本研究旨在分析行政與民事關於職業傷病的司法判決，並以問卷調查探討法律與醫學專業人士認定補償責任歸屬狀況與其相關因素。
研究方法：
本研究採混合研究法，進行方式包括：（1）以法源法律網資料庫，利用系統抽樣與滾雪球及立意取樣方式，分析2000年1月1日起至2016年7月31日職業傷病中行政與民事判決共計162件判決，以瞭解主要爭執的職業傷病類型與判決中對於職業傷病定義、立法精神與因果關係等論述；（2）以卡方檢定方式檢視2006年11月17日起至2016年7月31日的79件司法判決「是否考慮雇主可控制因素」與「是否判定為職業傷病」之統計相關。（3）以情境式問卷調查，探討法律與醫學專業人士對於第三人導致事故傷害之補償責任歸屬，以方便取樣方式招募，現職20歲以上之法官339位、律師398位與醫師319位進行問卷調查。
結果：
在行政法院部分，共計分析46件判決，爭執的職業傷病種類方面以「事故傷害」與「疾病」均為20件（43.48%）為最多；民事法院部分，共計分析116件判決，爭執的職業傷病種類方面以「事故傷害」為82件（70.69%）最多；卡方檢定分析顯示，「是否考慮雇主可控制因素」與「是否判定為職業傷病」具有高度相關23.68(p<0.001)。問卷調查部分，醫師對政府責任（government''s responsibility）態度平均值較法官與律師低（醫師：21.43,SD：3.55，法官：22.30,SD：3.01，律師：22.49,SD：3.08）；在控制性別、年齡狀況後，對政府責任（government''s responsibility）態度較高的律師，較傾向認為第三人導致工作傷病勞工保險不需補償，法官則與律師相反；在控制性別、年齡狀況後，對政府責任（government''s responsibility）態度較高的法官及律師，較傾向認為第三人導致工作傷病雇主不需補償，醫師則相反。
結論：
司法判決對於是否考慮雇主可控制因素，是影響職業傷病的認定的因素，醫學與法律專業人士對於職業傷病之補償責任歸屬，會因其對政府責任（government''s responsibility）態度不同而有差異。職業傷病認定與補償制度攸關工作者權利與社會安定，若重要守門員彼此間的判定基礎存有差異，則使職業傷病補償制度造成不確定因素，此一不確定因素的後果，全由工作者承擔則顯失公平。

Background and study objectives: Occupational injuries and diseases include acute accidents caused by work and chronic diseases due to occupational exposure. When work-related injuries and diseases occur, doctors and judges are the gatekeepers who determine whether work-related injuries and diseases are occupational injuries and diseases or not under workers’ compensation systems. In Taiwan, the definitions and conditions of occupational injuries and diseases aren''t stipulated in the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, when work injuries and diseases occur, judicial standards may differ among these gatekeepers, leading to different compensation results. This research aimed to understand administrative and civil judicial decisions on occupational injuries and diseases and to investigate the attitude and its related factors of legal and medical professionals concerning liability attribution for compensation of employees’ work injuries and diseases.

Research methods: Mixed-methods were used in this study, including the following: (1) Analyzing 162 administrative and civil judicial decisions on occupational injuries and diseases to understand major categories of occupational injuries and diseases in dispute, their definitions, the legislative spirit and factors that were considered in the decisions and so on, these decisions were determined during the period from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2016 and were sampled by systematic sampling, snowball sampling and purposive sampling from the data bank of judicial cases; (2) Adopting Chi-Square Test to examine the association between "considering the controllable factors of employers or not" and "whether it is occupational injuries and diseases" of 79 judicial decisions which were determined during the period from November 17, 2006 to July 31, 2016, (3) Conducting a questionnaire survey among 339 judges, 398 lawyers and 319 doctors aged over 20 years old.

Results: Among the 46 decisions from administrative courts,"accidents" and "diseases" were major types of events in dispute, both accounting for 43.48% (20 decisions). Among the 116 decisions from civil courts, accidents accounts for 70.69% (82 decisions), which were the most dominant type of events in dispute. Statistical testing indicated that there was significant association between "considering the controllable factors of employers or not" and "whether it is occupational injuries and diseases". Results from the questionnaire survey showed that the score of the government''s role in social protecton was lower in physican than in judges and lawyers.(doctors:21.43,SD:3.55;judges:22.30,SD:3.01;lawyers:22.49, SD:3.08).Under controling gender and age, there was a higher rate of lawyers who had high government''s responsibility to consider that the third party causing work-related injuries and diseases would had no need to compensate for labor insurance, judges had the opposite results; Under controling gender and age, judges and lawyers who had higher standard of government’s responsibility had a higher rate of considering that employers would had no need to compensate for the work-related injuries and diseases caused by the third party, doctors had the opposite results.

Conclusions: Considering the controllable factors of employers or not affected the desitions of work-related injuries and diseases. Legal and medical professionals had different liability attribution for compensation because of the attitude to the responsibility of the government. The identification and the workers’ compensation systems played an important role in the rights for employees and the stableness of the society. If there is disparity between these significant gatekeepers, there will be uncertain factors about workers’ compensation systems, which will convey unfair if that have to be borne by all employees.

摘要 7
Abstract 9
第一章 緒論 12
第二章 文獻探討 15
第一節 職業傷病定義與要件 15
第一項 國際勞工組織定義 15
第二項 我國法律、行政機關命令與函釋 16
第三項 國內學者定義與要件 19
第二節 職業傷病補償制度 21
第三節 因果關係理論與無過失補償責任 25
第一項 條件理論 26
第二項 相當因果關係說 28
第三項 無過失補償責任 30
第四節 影響職業傷病認定態度的因素 34
第五節 國內職業傷病補償責任歸屬文獻回顧 37
第三章 研究方法 41
第一節 分析架構 41
第二節 研究設計 43
第三節 研究對象 44
第四節 資料收集與分析方法 49
第五節 研究倫理 55
第四章 司法判決分析（162件） 56
第一節 行政法院判決基本描述與內容分析 56
第一項 職業傷病定義、補償本質 59
第二項 職業傷病因果關係 59
第三項 權力分立、行政裁量與判斷餘地 61
第四項 其他重要論述 62
第二節 民事法院判決基本描述與內容分析 64
第一項 職業傷病定義、補償制度本質與立法精神 66
第二項 職業傷病要件與因果關係認定 71
第三項 雇主可控制性 74
第四項 其他重要論述 79
第三節 非雇主可控制因素與職業傷病認定相關（79件） 87
第四節 司法判決分析結論 92
第五章 醫學與法律專業人士職業傷病補償責任問卷調查結果 93
第一節 醫學與法律專業人士描述性統計與卡方檢定 93
第二節 醫學與法律專業人士對政府責任態度變異數分析 96
第三節 醫學與法律專業人士之對政府責任態度與責任歸屬分析 97
第四節 討論與研究限制 99
第六章 結論與建議 107
參考資料 109
附錄1國際勞工組織第121號建議書第5點、第6點原文 117
附錄2行政法院職業傷病判決基本資料 118
附錄3民事法院職業傷病判決基本資料 124
附錄4最高法院89年度第4次民事庭會議 140
附錄5各級法院雇主可控制性與職業傷病認定判決基本資料 141
附錄6「受僱者傷病之補償責任歸屬」調查問卷(醫師版) 146
附錄7「受僱者傷病之補償責任歸屬」調查問卷(法律人士版) 157

Andreß, Hans‐Jürgen, & Heien, Thorsten. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17(4), 337-356.
Arts, Wil, & Gelissen, John. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter? Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 283-299.
Atherton, Charles R. (1990). A pragmatic defense of the welfare state against the ideological challenge from the right. Social Work, 35(1), 41-45.
Beach, J, Chen, Y, & Cherry, N. (2012). How physicians allocate causation: a scenario study with factorial design. Occupational medicine, 62(6), 407-412.
Benbenishty, Rami, Davidson-Arad, Bilha, López, Mónica, Devaney, John, Spratt, Trevor, Koopmans, Carien, . . . Hayes, David. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 63-75. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
Blekesaune, Morten, & Quadagno, Jill. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies a comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 415-427.
Bowen, Glenn. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Busemeyer, Marius R, Goerres, Achim, & Weschle, Simon. (2009). Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(3), 195-212.
Carroll, J.M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 43-60. doi: 10.1016/s0953-5438(00)00023-0
Cohen, Jeremy, & Gleason, Timothy W. (1990). Social research in communication and law. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Concha-Barrientos, Marisol, Nelson, Deborah Imel, Fingerhut, Marilyn, Driscoll, Timothy, & Leigh, James. (2005). The global burden due to occupational injury. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(6), 470-481. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20226
Creswell, John W. (2014). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, John W., & Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, John W., 王慧玉, 謝志偉, & Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2010). 混合方法研究導論. 臺北市: 心理.
Edlund, Jonas. (1999). Trust in government and welfare regimes: Attitudes to redistribution and financial cheating in the USA and Norway. European Journal of Political Research, 35(3), 341-370.
Ellett, Alberta J., Ellis, Jacquelyn I., Westbrook, Tonya M., & Dews, Denise. (2007). A qualitative study of 369 child welfare professionals'' perspectives about factors contributing to employee retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(2), 264-281. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.005
Feldman, Stanley. (1983). Economic individualism and American public opinion. American Politics Quarterly, 11(1), 3-29.
Friedman, Milton, Friedman, Rose D., & 羅耀宗譯. (2008). 選擇的自由. 臺北市: 經濟新潮社.
Gërxhani, Klarita, & Koster, Ferry. (2012). ‘I am not alone’: Understanding public support for the welfare state. International Sociology, 27(6), 768-787.
Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J., & Graham, Wendy F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255
Hasenfeld, Yeheskel, & Rafferty, Jane A. (1989). The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state. Social Forces, 67(4), 1027-1048.
Hill, Dilys. (1992). The American Philosophy of Welfare: Citizenship and the ‘Politics of Conduct’. Social Policy & Administration, 26(2), 117-128.
Horkheimer, Max, Adorno, Theodor W., 洪佩鬱, & 藺月峰譯. (1990). 啟蒙辯證法(哲學片斷). 重慶市: 新華經銷.
Kikuzawa, Saeko, Olafsdottir, Sigrun, & Pescosolido, Bernice A. (2008). Similar pressures, different contexts: Public attitudes toward government intervention for health care in 21 nations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(4), 385-399.
Kluegel, James R, & Smith, Eliot R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on Whites'' views. Social Forces, 61(3), 797-824.
Kluegel, James R, & Smith, Eliot R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans'' views of what is and what ought to be: Transaction Publishers.
Lin, Kuan-Han, Chu, Po-Ching, Kuo, Chun-Ya, Hwang, Yaw-Huei, Wu, Shiao-Chi, & Guo, Yue Leon. (2014). Psychiatric disorders after occupational injury among National Health Insurance enrollees in Taiwan. Psychiatry Research, 219(3), 645-650. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.06.015
Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1963). The value patterns of democracy: A case study in comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 515-531.
Martin, Aaron. (2011). Partisan identification and attitudes to big versus small government in Australia: Evidence from the ISSP. Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 243-256.
Maxwell, Joseph Alex, 高, 熏芳, 林, 盈助, & 王, 向葵. (2001). 質化硏究設計 : 一種互動取向的方法. 臺北市: 心理.
Nasser, Ramzi, Singhal, Sushila, & Abouchedid, Kamal. (2005). Causal attributions for poverty among Indian youth. Current research in social psychology, 11(1), 1-13.
O''connor, Julia S. (1993). Gender, class and citizenship in the comparative analysis of welfare state regimes: theoretical and methodological issues. British journal of Sociology, 501-518.
Peterson, Garry D., Cumming, Graeme S., & Carpenter, Stephen R. (2003). Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World
Planificación de un Escenario: una Herramienta para la Conservación en un Mundo Incierto. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358-366. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
Pettersen, Per Arnt. (2001). Welfare state legitimacy: ranking, rating, paying: the popularity and support for Norwegian welfare programmes in the mid 1990s. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(1), 27-49.
Plamenatz, John Petrov. (1970). Ideology. London: Macmillan.
Robinson, W. S. (1951). The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction. American Sociological Review, 16(6), 812-818. doi: 10.2307/2087508
Sabbagh, Clara, & Vanhuysse, Pieter. (2010). Intergenerational Justice Perceptions and the Role of Welfare Regimes A Comparative Analysis of University Students. Administration & Society, 42(6), 638-667.
Sainsbury, Diane. (1996). Gender, equality, and welfare states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schoemaker, Paul J. H. (1993). Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 193-213. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140304
Schoemaker, Paul JH. (1995). Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan management review, 36(2), 25.
Sears, David O, Lau, Richard R, Tyler, Tom R, & Allen, Harris M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74(03), 670-684.
Shi, Leiyu. (2008). Health services research methods. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning.
Svallfors, Stefan. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283-304.
Svallfors, Stefan. (1999). Political trust and attitudes towards redistribution: A comparison of Sweden and Norway. European Societies, 1(2), 241-268.
Verba, Sidney, & Orren, Gary R. (1985). The meaning of equality in America. Political Science Quarterly, 100(3), 369-387.
Wong, Timothy Ka‐ying, Wan, Shirley Po‐san, & Law, Kenneth Wing‐kin. (2009). Welfare attitudes and social class: The case of Hong Kong in comparative perspective. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(2), 142-152.
Yang, Philip, & Barrett, Nadine. (2006). Understanding public attitudes towards Social Security. International journal of social welfare, 15(2), 95-109.
日本厚生勞動省英文官網. (2017). Retrieved Jan. 25, 2017, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/
王伯琦. (1979). 民法債篇總論. 臺北市: 正中印行.
王惠玲. (2008). 職業災害補償新議題－過勞死與過勞自殺研究成果報告: 國立政治大學勞工研究所.
王嘉琪, 鄭雅文, 王榮德, & 郭育良. (2009). 職災補償制度的發展與台灣制度現況. [Development of Workers'' Compensation and the Current System in Taiwan]. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 28(1), 1-15. doi: 10.6288/tjph2009-28-01-01
王榮德. (2007). 各國職業傷病補償制度研究.
王澤鑑. (2009). 侵權行為法. 臺北市: 王慕華發行.
史奎謙. (1999). 訴訟法上事實之證明與罪疑唯輕原則. 軍法專刊, 45(8), 37-44.
伊慶春主編. (1994). 台灣社會的民意意向:社會科學的分析. 臺北市: 中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究.
朱凱莙. (2015). 探討職業災害認定－以RCA為例. 工業安全衛生(312), 64-71. doi: 10.6311/ishm.2015.312.5
何彥陞. (2016). 職業安全衛生職業災害罪之刑事判決與案例分析. [An Analysis on Criminal Judgments and Cases of Occupational Safety and Health Disaster Crime]. 勞動及職業安全衛生研究季刊, 24(1), 102-114.
吳庚. (2010). 行政法之理論與實用. 臺北市: 三民總經銷.
吳姿慧. (2010). 勞工上下班途中之通勤災害與勞基法雇主職業災害補償責任之關係/士林地院九八勞訴六二. 台灣法學雜誌, 160, 177-180.
吳徐哲, & 林立翔. (2012). 探討HR－XML 3.0標準於人力資源管理之應用與發展. [Exploring the Application and Development of HR-XML 3.0 in Human Resource Management]. 商管科技季刊, 13(1), 1-20.
宋曜廷, & 潘佩妤. (2010). 混合研究在教育研究的應用. [Applications of Mixed Methods Research in Educational Studies]. 教育科學研究期刊, 55(4), 97-130.
李後政. (2001). 法學入門 : 活動的法律敎室. 臺北市: 永然文化.
杜信宏, 陳志勇, & 劉立文. (2014). 我國重大職業災害之人因工程分析與檢核表. [Ergonomic Analysis and Checklist of Major Occupational Accidents in Taiwan]. 勞工安全衛生研究季刊, 22(2), 124-135.
汪信君. (2010). 論動力車輛事故之侵權行為責任、責任保險與無過失補償：以經濟抑制理論為基礎. [Automobile Accidents: Tort Law, Liability Insurance, and No-Fault Compensation from the Perspective of Economic Deterrence Theory]. 臺大法學論叢, 39(1), 237-285. doi: 10.6199/ntulj.2010.39.01.05
周漾沂. (2014). 從客觀轉向主觀：對於刑法上結果歸責理論的反省與重構. [Reflection and Restructuring of Consequence Attribution inCriminal Law]. 臺大法學論叢, 43(4), 1469-1532. doi: 10.6199/ntulj.2014.43.04.02
林更盛. (2002). 勞基法上職業災害因果關係的判斷評台灣高等法院八七年勞上字第五號判決.
林依瑩, 鄭雅文, & 王榮德. (2009). 職災補償制度之國際比較及台灣制度之改革方向. [An International Comparison of Workers'' Compensation Schemes for Occupational Injuries and Diseases and Suggestions for Policy Reform in Taiwan]. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 28(6), 459-474. doi: 10.6288/tjph2009-28-06-02
林振賢. (2003). 新版勞基法的理論與實務. 臺中市: 捷太.
林鈺雄. (2001). 罪疑唯輕與法律評價. 月旦法學雜誌, 72, 18-19.
林鈺雄. (2014). 新刑法總則. [臺北市]: 林鈺雄.
林豐賓. (1998). 勞工安全衛生法 : 槪論與實務. 臺北市: 三民.
林豐賓, & 劉邦棟. (2010). 勞動基準法論 = The interpretation of the labor standards act. 臺北市: 三民.
邱文聰. (2007). 從勞工職災補償制度的因果認定談治理理性的典範移轉.
邱聰智. (2013). 新訂民法債編通則 下冊 (新訂二版 ed.): 臺北市 : 邱聰智, 民102.
邱駿彥. (1998). 我國職業災害補償制度. 輔仁法學, 205-220.
薑世明. (2014). 法院組織法. 臺北市: 新學林.
施錦村. (2013). 比較廣告資訊內容與法律效果關聯之驗證：市場競爭秩序的角色. [A Validation of the Relationships between Informational Content and Legal Effect on Comparative Advertising: The Role of Market Competitive Order]. 管理學報, 30(5), 445-465. doi: 10.6504/jom.2013.30.05.04
施錦村. (2014). 比較廣告案件內容結構分析. [The Content Construction Analysis of Comparative Advertising Cases]. 管理評論, 33(1), 69-87+125.
孫森焱. (2009). 民法債編總論(下). 臺北市: 三民經銷.
徐婉寧. (2013). 精神疾病與雇主之職業災害補償及民事賠償責任－兼評臺灣板橋地方法院一○○年度勞訴字第一號判決. [Mental Diseases, Workers'' Compensation, and Civil Liability for Damages: Comments on the (100) Lao-Su No. 1 Decision Rendered by the Taiwan Banciao District Court]. 政大法學評論(134), 115-1 72. doi: 10.3966/102398202013090134003
徐儆暉, 陳秋蓉, 楊啟賢, & 謝曼麗. (2012). 原住民勞工職業災害現況探討. [Analysis of Occupational Accident among Indigenous Workers in Taiwan]. 勞工安全衛生研究季刊, 20(3), 408-430.
高淑清. (2008). 質性研究的18堂課 : 首航初探之旅. 高雄市: 麗文文化.
高添富. (2015). 再度祭出「事故補償、風險救濟、過失賠償」十二字箴言. 臺北市醫師公會會刊, 59(4), 17-20.
國際勞工組織官網. (2016). 職業傷病相關公約與建議書. Retrieved 10/02, 2016, from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312459
張其恆. (2011). 論通勤災害應否視為職業災害. [Should Commuting Accidents Be Regarded As The Work-Related Accidents?]. 政大勞動學報(27), 77-99.
張彧, & 徐雅媛. (2008). 我國職業災害勞工重建政策之探討: 行政院勞工委員會安全衛生研究所.
張清滄. (2004). 例解勞動基準法. 臺北市: 五南.
梁恒昌. (1982). 過失傷害之探討. 法令月刊, 33(12), 3-5.
莊啟磊. (2014). 論職業災害之國家安全保護義務－勞動保護制度之簡析. 工業安全衛生(297), 68-82. doi: 10.6311/ishm.2014.297.5
許恒達. (2011). 合法替代行為與過失犯的結果歸責：假設容許風險實現理論的提出與應用. [Hypothetical Lawful Conduct and Causation of Criminal Negligence: A Review from the Perspective of "Realization of Hypothetical Allowed Risk"]. 臺大法學論叢, 40(2), 707-787. doi: 10.6199/ntulj.2011.40.02.05
郭育良. (2002). 職業病槪論 = Introduction to occuptaional medicine. 臺北市: 華杏.
郭育良. (2012). 職業與疾病: 華杏.
陳介然, 鄭雅文, & 何俊傑. (2015). 受僱者之自評非致命職業傷病的盛行率、分佈與相關因素. [Prevalence, Distribution, and Correlates of Self-reported Non-fatal Occupational Injuries or Diseases among Employees in Taiwan]. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 34(4), 391-402. doi: 10.6288/tjph201534104018
陳向明. (2002). 社會科學質的硏究. 臺北市: 五南.
陳俊復. (2008). 淺談勞工通勤職業傷害之認定. 工業安全衛生(226), 35-45.
勞動部全球資訊網中文網, 中華民國勞動部 -. (2017, 2016/9/23). 中華民國勞動部 - 勞動部全球資訊網中文網
曾孆瑾, & 古允文. (2010). 到底應主觀還是該客觀：從性騷擾防治法的實務執行解讀性騷擾的樣貌. [Subjective or Objective: Interpreting Sexual Harassment by Examining Implementation of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act]. 臺灣社會福利學刊, 9(1), 165-212. doi: 10.6265/tjsw.2010.9(1)5
黃越欽. (2012). 勞動法新論. 臺北市: 翰蘆圖書.
黃越欽, 王惠玲, & 張其恆. (1995). 職災補償論 : 中美英德日五國比較. 臺北市: 五南.
黃源銘. (2012). 對「專家學者組成委員會所為決定之司法審查」－以委員會之運作與資訊審查為中心. [A Study of Judicial Review, as Conducted by Delegated Committees outside of Authority, with a Focus on Its Process Operation and Information Review]. 政大法學評論(129), 167-243.
新加坡人力部英文官網. (2017). Retrieved Jan. 25, 2017, from http://www.mom.gov.sg/
葉雙水. (1984). 刑事裁判與罪疑惟輕之原則. 律師通訊(62), 2-4.
劉春堂. (2001). 民法債編通則. 臺北市: 三民總經銷.
劉鶴群、林秀雲、陳麗欣、胡正申、黃韻如等翻譯, Earl Babbie著 ;. (2010). 社會科學研究方法 The Practice of Social Researxh 臺北市: 新加坡商聖智學習 : 雙葉書廊總經銷.
潘淑滿. (2003). 質性硏究 : 理論與應用. 臺北市: 心理.
蔡墩銘. (2009). 刑法總論. 臺北市: 三民.
鄭榮郎. (2014). 結合DMAIC與業風險管理探討職業災害風險之研究. [Empirical Study DMAIC Integrated with ORM to Explore Risk of Occupational Accident]. 危機管理學刊, 11(2), 101-112.
鍾佩樺. (2016). 從社會不平等角度檢視職業傷病勞工的補償經歷及其心理健康影響. 臺灣大學. Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2016年)
魏朝光. (1992). 勞動職業災害之補償: 勞工研究資料中心基金會.
蘇文源. (2014). 國內感電類型之重大職業災害分析. [The Analysis of Electrocution at Workplaces in Taiwan]. 勞工安全衛生研究季刊, 22(4), 389-410.
蘇宜士. (2005). 台灣營造業職業災害現象背後結構性因素的探究. 工業安全衛生(197), 36-63.
蘇南, & 卓冠瑜. (2016). 營建工地職業災害之鑑定與法律責任. 技師期刊(72), 127-131.