中國大陸自1987年對於經濟事務採取改革開放政策後，吸引世界各國投資人與事業到大陸投資、設廠，臺商亦不免除於其中。在兩岸政治局勢已不如過往劍拔弩張的情況下，出於何種目的，以及有無必要維持赴陸就職之限制性管制等問題，逐漸浮出檯面。例如，在維持管制誠屬必要的前提下，應該如何管制為妥？又現行臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例（下稱兩岸條例）之規定是否合理？實務的運作是否出現管制失靈的情況？諸多問題，從臺北高等行政法院一則針對國人擔任廈門社區主任助理案所作出的判決在輿論中呈現出兩極反應，吾人即可體會到這些問題的困難性。不過與此同時，本案也給予我們良好的法學研究契機。在首次出現依據兩岸條例第33條所進行的判決情況下，吾人始能對於法院如何解釋、適用兩岸條例第33條等事項進行分析，並進一步就法院意見進行檢討，俾使兩岸條例第33條的規範意義與實際效果獲得釐清。因此，本文先將現行兩岸條例第33條之規範體系予以介紹。其次，將針對目前首次涉及到兩岸條例第33條之廈門社區主任助理案判決要旨加以整理。再者，針對一審與二審法院所為判決之理由予以評析。最後，提出作者對於兩岸條例第33條之建議，以及赴陸就職管制之展望。

Since 1987, mainland China has adopted the reform and opening-up policy for economic affairs, attracting investors and businesses from all over the world to invest and set up factories in mainland China, and Taiwanese businessmen are not exempted from it. As the political situation across the Taiwan Strait is no longer as tense as in the past, questions such as what the purpose is and whether it is necessary to maintain the restrictive control of going to mainland China for employment are gradually emerging. Not only that, but also the follow-up problems have been raised and intensely discussed. For example, how to be properly controlled and whether the current way of regulation on employment for any organizations in mainland China still reasonable is, which comes from the Article 33 of "the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area" (Cross-Strait Act). Whether any regulatory failures in the practice exist or not, should meanwhile not be ignored. The difficulty of these issues is evident in the bipolar reaction in public opinion in the case of the Taipei High Administrative Court's ruling on the case of 27 Taiwanese serving as director assistant of Xiamen community. But at the same time, this case also gives us a good opportunity for legal research. When a judgment based on Article 33 of the Cross-Strait Act appears for the first time, we can start to analyze how the court interprets and applies Article 33. The court's opinion to clarify the normative meaning and practical effect of Article 33 should be reviewed at the same time. Therefore, this article first introduces the normative system the current regulations on going to mainland China for employment. Secondly, we will sort out the gist of the judgments in the Xiamen Community Director Assistant Case, which involves Article 33 of the Cross-Strait Act for the first time in the court. Furthermore, the reasons for the judgments made by the courts shall be completely reviewed. Finally, the author gives some suggestions on Article 33, as well as the prospect of employment control of the Cross-Strait Act.