我國勞資爭議仲裁制度之種類，可區分為約定之仲裁、國家之仲裁及仲裁法上之仲裁。並無德國法上之企業組織法上之仲裁及勞動法院法上之仲裁法庭。然而所謂約定之仲裁，也僅表示當事人雙方有共同合意交付仲裁之權而已，關於仲裁程序及其效力，均已規定於勞資爭議處理法之中，可知我國勞資爭議處理法上之仲裁，係以(國家)強制仲裁為主，約定仲裁為輔，至於仲裁法上之仲裁，從條文的解釋上固可適用及於權利事項之爭議，但如從法理上觀之，則仍有不少問題有待釐清，在仲裁所涉及之相關問題方面、只有在國家無極端例外的情形而進行強制仲裁時，始有違反團體協約自治，國家的強制仲裁已違反國家中立原則。在最後手段原則方面，若無約定仲裁或義務仲裁之情形，且國家亦不得以極端例外情形加以強制仲裁時，當事人當得直接進行爭議行為而無違反最後手段原則。

　　　　　The labor dispute settlement system in the R.0.C. includes three categories: agreement on arbitration, state arbitration and arbitration on the Arbitration Law. Counterparts of arbitration according to the German Industrial Relations Law and court of arbitration according to the German Labor Court Law do not exist in Taiwan. Agreement on arbitration only indicates the right ,f both parties concerned in dispute, to reach consensus and consign to arbitration. The Labor Disputes Settlement Law stipulates the process and effect ,f arbitration. It is known that (state ) mandatory arbitration is the main system of the ROC's Laher Disputes Settlement Law, and agreement on arbitration is complementary. Literally speaking, arbitration in the Arbitration Law is applicable to disputes on matters of rights. However, in reference to the natural principle of law questions still need to be clarified. Concerning matters on arbitration, it is against the collective agreement autonomy for the state inforce mandatory arbitration with the exception of extreme cases. The state mandatory arbitration violates the state neutrality principle. When there is no agreement on arbitration, obligatory arbitration or (the state) mandatory arbitration excepting extreme cases, parties concerned may resort to direct disputive actions and such actions do not violate the last means principle.