勞動契約上最低服務年限約定管制之依據除了勞動基準法外，須回歸民法，其管制標準為「必要性」與「合理性」。欲判斷該約定之效力，須實質認定「是否提供訓練」、「提供如何之訓練」，且須考量「最低服務年限約定之目的」與「是否為附合契約條款」等。在由主管機關針對各種類型之勞動契約制定明確之規範後，宜採司法管制之手段。且宜引進法國式「相對無效」與美國式「可得無效」之概念，而不宜採取「全有或全無原則」。 只要服務年限之約定有效，其違約金等相關約定在合理範圍內亦有效，且民法上違約金酌滅之規定對於補償措施或訓練費用償還條款有適用、準用或類推適用之可能。於約定之最低服務期間，若雇主依勞動基準法第十一條之規定終止契約，雇主應給予勞工合理之補償，以保護勞工之正當信賴。

In addition to the Labor Standards Act, the basis of the regulation of minimum years in employment contracts is the Civil Code. The standards of regulation are necessity and rationality. If we want to judge the effects of the agreements, we should recognize essentially whether the employers train the employees and how the employers train the employees. In addition, we should consider the purposes of minimum years in employment contracts and whether the contracts are standard contracts. After the competent authorities make clear regulations about kinds of employment contracts, the contracts shall be regulated by justice. We should domesticate the French and the American concept of voidable contracts. Besides, all-or-nothing approach is inappropnate. So long as the minimum years in employment contracts are effective, the agreed penalties are also effective in the reasonable scopes. The provisions concerning reduction of the penalties can apply, apply mutatis mutandis, or apply by analogy to the agreements of return of the compensation or the training fee. During the minimum years, if the employers terminate employment contracts in accordance with Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act, fair compensation must be paid in order to protect the employees' legitimate reliance.