民國85年間為擴大勞動基準法之適用範圍，為使勞基法可適用於更多的行業及工作者乃增定第84條之1使工作性質特殊之勞工於納入勞基法適用範圍之際，排除工時相關規定之限制。保全服務業之保全人員依87年勞委會之核定公告成為適用勞基法第84條之1之工作者，工作時間由勞雇另行約定，不受勞基法相關規定之限制。然因保全人員長期超時工作引發諸多爭議與疑慮，勞委會遂於99年12月17日修正「職業促發腦血管及心臟疾病（外傷導致者除外）之認定參考指引」，並於100年5月訂定「保全業之保全人員工作時間審核參考指引」，各地方政府援此指引訂定核備勞基法第84條之1約定書之審查基準。在我國目前欠缺成熟集體機制作為勞動條件協商之現實下，勞委會前述所訂之審核參考指引，以及各地方政府之審查基準，成為勞雇約定書之重要依據，故其意義甚大。本文乃以勞委會所訂之審核參考指引及地方主管機關之審查基準，對保全業關於工作時間之約定產生之影響為探討對象，研究結果認為：第一、保全業排除勞基法工時之規定，透過行政主管基機關之審查基準，工時約定之實況又大致回到勞基法工時規範之框架，第84條之1除外適用之意義，有重新思考之必要。第二、中央主管機關之審核參考指引做為概略性之指導原則，應不涉及勞動條件之統一規定，地方主管機關之審查基準則需因地制宜，個案認定勞雇約定合理於否，兩者定位應明確劃分，不宜重混淆。第三、勞基法第84條之1所稱之勞雇另行約定不應侷限個別勞工所定之勞動契約。目前實務上排除集體協商所訂之團體協約之解釋，甚為不妥。第四、地方主管機關之審查，已相當程度決定勞雇之工時勞動條件，故其核備應解釋為生效要件。第五、勞雇之約定書應有延長工時加班費之記載，且應注意兩點原則：1.不應使正常工時與延長工時之界線模糊。2.加班費應以平時約定之薪資計算。

1996 to expand the scope of application of the Labor Standards Law, the Labor Standards Law apply to more industries and workers are increasing given the first 84-1, the scope of the special nature of the work of labor Narulaoji France occasion, exclude the hours of work subject to the restrictions. Security Services security guards approved Notice in accordance with the Council of Labor Affairs in 1987, the Labor Standards Law Article 84-1 of the workers, the working hours by the employer and employee agree otherwise, without the restrictions of the relevant provisions of the Labor Standards Law. However, because of the security personnel who work long hours caused a lot of controversy and doubt, the CLA then amended on December 17, 1999 Occupational precipitating cerebrovascular and heart diseases (except for trauma cause) of the identified reference guide, and 100 in May set the security personnel of the security industry, working time audit Reference Guide, ”local government aid guidelines set out by the review of the base of the engagement letter for approval Section 84-1 of the Labor Standards Law. In the reality of our current lack of mature collective consultation mechanism as the working conditions the CLA foregoing Order of the Audit Reference Guide, and the local government review of the base has become an important basis for employers and employees agreed the book, so its significance is great. In this article are based on the Council of Labor Affairs of the Audit Reference Guide and local competent authority review of benchmarks agreed on working hours by the security industry as a case study, the researchers concluded that: First, the security industry, to exclude the working hours of the Labor Standards Law regulations, live through the review of the administrative authority basis, working hours agreed roughly back to the specification of the framework of the Labor Standards Law working hours, the meaning of applicable except for the first 84-1, there is need to rethink. Second, the central competent authority audit reference guide as a rough guiding principle should not involve the uniform provisions of the labor conditions, local competent authorities to review the benchmark need to be adapted to local conditions, the case finds that employers and employees agreed at a reasonable whether the positioning between the two should clear division, should not overlap. Third, the meaning of Section 84-1 of the Labor Standards Law of employers and employees agree otherwise should not be limited to individual workers in the labor contract. Exclude the interpretation of the collective agreement set out in the collective bargaining practice, very wrong. Fourth, the local competent authority for review, has been a considerable extent decided to employers and employees working hours and working conditions, so its nuclear prepared should be interpreted as the entry into force elements. Fifth, employers and employees agreed the book should have extended hours overtime records, and should pay attention to two principles: 1. Should not be the normal working hours and extended working hours of the boundaries blurred. 2 overtime to the usual conventions of the payroll calculation.