國家教育研究院

　　依據《大學法》之明文規定，除《教師法》既有規範外，大學得於學校章則中增列教師權利義務，並得基於學術研究發展需要，另定教師停聘或不續聘之規定，經校務會議審議通過後實施，並納入聘約。因此，大學基於學術研究發展及維持教學品質之需要，若於校內章則及聘約中訂定「所屬教師應於一定年限內完成升等，否則即不予續聘」之「限年升等條款」，似應被評斷為合法且妥適的規範模式。惟近年來，國內若干訂有限年升等條款之公私立大學，因條款年限屆至而衍生不續聘教師之行政爭訟；就此，最高行政法院自2013 年起雖陸續已有多起判決，然均僅指示應就違反聘約之情節是否重大進行審酌，而並未提出大學「不得訂定限年升等條款」之確切見解，故留予後續研究諸多探討空間。本研究發現，自2006年起，國內諸多大學即以提升新進教師專業能力及大學競爭力為訴求，而於校內章則或聘約訂定「限年升等條款」。迄今，法院針對相關爭訟雖已累積不少判決，惟均僅確認應就違反聘約之情節是否重大進行審酌，而未判定「限年升等條款」係屬違法；換言之，此等條款之運作與爭議，仍有持續發生之可能。據此，本研究除進行法令文件分析外，並基於直接利害關係人之觀點，針對大學教師進行意見調查，使瞭解渠等對於限年升等條款相關概念及其運作的認知情形，以輔之形成本研究之下列結論： 一、大學有關「限年升等條款」相關概念界定，未能普遍獲得大學教師認同。本研究認為，「限年升等條款」之訂定雖應屬大學自治權限所及之範疇，惟大學理應依據自我定位，謹慎思考將「限年升等條款」納入本校制度的必要性與妥適性；且教師升等本係偏屬學術事項，故宜回歸學術自由、專業自主之原則，大學管理階層自不宜以「限年升等」為規範教師行為的行政策略。 二、大學就「限年升等條款」所主張之正向影響，未能獲得教師的普遍認同。據此而論，「限年升等條款」若具有其所宣稱的正向功能與作用，則大學教師，理應樂意依據學校的規劃模式完成升等；然若大學在要求教師「限年升等」之際，並未配套提供對於教師具有實益的支持措施，則制度所預期的成效恐勢將大打折扣。 三、「限年升等條款」對新進教師之可能負向影響，大學教師普遍予以認同。由本研究之調查推知，「限年升等條款」的適用對象，普遍對於此一制度不具好感；故就執行層面而言，大學若欲訂定相關條款，除須更為主動地與新進教師溝通其設計目的與積極內涵，並應同理適用對象的處境，進而據以設定並落實配套支持措施。 四、不同學術職等之大學教師，其就「限年升等條款」之認同程度存在差異。本文就此認為，已具最高學術職等的大學「教授」，不但與限年升等條款無涉，且更有機會參與校內相關決策，故其對於學校規制抱持較為正向的認知傾向，當亦在情理之中；惟渠等於設定相關規範之際，更應秉持制度之必要性、妥適性與合宜性，使其以有利於高等教育品質及教師專業素質之提升為依歸，並應在執行層面上，心懷同理以預留實踐具體個案正義之彈性空間。

　　According to the University Act, in addition to following the stipulations in the Teacher Act, universities may also add rights and obligations of teachers in the academic rules and formulate separate stipulations for the suspension or refusal of reengagement of teachers upon requirements of academic research and development, which shall be implemented and provided in the contracts after being approved by the academic affairs meeting. As a result, if universities stipulate that “faulty members should complete academic promotion within a time limit, or they would face suspension or refusal of reengagement” based on the need for academic research and development and teaching quality, it should be considered as a legitimate and appropriate model. However, in recent years, several public and private universities with stipulations of completing academic promotion within a time limit were facing administrative litigation as their faculty members reached the time limit, not receiving the reengagement. The Supreme Administrative Court has made several related verdicts since 2013. Yet, the verdicts only indicated the necessity to consider carefully whether the case is against the contract. They did not clarify whether it is legal to set up a time limit for academic promotion. This leaves us more room for further research. Since 2006, many universities in Taiwan have stipulated in the academic rules or contracts with faculty that “faculty members should complete academic promotion within a time limit, or they would face suspension or refusal of reengagement” based on the need of promoting new faculty’s professional abilities and the competitiveness of universities. Although the Supreme Administrative Court has made several related verdicts so far, the verdicts only indicated the necessity to consider carefully whether the case is against the contract. They did not clarify whether it is legal to set up a time limit for academic promotion. In other words, the controversies may continue. Accordingly, based on the perspectives of the stakeholders, a faculty survey was conducted to explore their understanding of completing academic promotion within a time limit and how the policy has been carried out. The survey results showed that faculty did not agree that the policy has positive effects on the development of universities. On the contrary, it was commonly believed that setting the time limit impacted new faculty negatively.