勞工之定義乃是勞動法之核心問題，現行工會法第四條雖規定「勞工均有組織及加入工會之權利」，然同法並未對勞工一詞有立法性定義。本文以為，各個勞動法規之立法目的並不相同，故勞工一詞之概念範圍亦應基於各個法規之屬性、立法目的等而有廣狹之別。新勞動三法施行後，我國之集體勞動關係已正式進入新紀元，鑑於新工會法第六條採工會組織多元化與自由化之立法方式，且唯有依工會法成立之工會方得成為締結團體協約之勞方當事人，故工會法中之勞工概念範圍，應著重於是否有保護其團體協商之必要性與妥當性。基此，工會法上之勞工不應以適用勞動基準法之勞工為限，若與團體協商之他方當事人具有僱用關係者，不論是否具有從屬性，即屬工會法上之勞工。

The definition of labor is the core issue in the Labor Act. In accordance with Article 4 of the existing Labor Union Act, “Laborers have the right to organize and join unions”. However, the same law does not legislatively define the term labor. According to this study, the legislative purposes of the various labor laws are deemed to be not the same. Therefore, the scope of the concept of labor should be distinguished in the broad sense and the narrow sense based on the attributes of the regulations and the legislative purposes. Following the implementation of the three labor laws, the collective employment relationship in our country has formally entered a new age. According to Article 6 of the New Labor Union Act that adopts the legislative approach of union and organization diversification and liberalization, only unions established in compliance with the Labor Union Act are eligible as labor parties for concluding group labor agreements. Hence, the scope of the labor concept in the Labor Union Act should focus on whether or not there is a need, or whether or not it is appropriate to protect group bargaining. In view of this, labor in the Labor Union Act is not only limited to labor applicable to the Labor Standards Law. Other parties engaged in group bargaining with employment relationships, regardless of subordinate, are regarded as labor in accordance with the Labor Union Act.