我國外送平台工作者法律關係之比較研究－以美國與中國為參考對象

近年來，餐飲外送平台於我國興起，以便捷的線上訂餐、實體取餐模式，成功吸引許多消費者使用，亦有不少工作者投入外送員行列，成為新的「非典型勞務型態」的從業人員，而平台與外送員簽屬「承攬服務條款」，雖然於表面上外送員具有高度自主性與承攬無異，但自2019年開始接連發生外送員於送餐途中遭受交通事故，但平台卻以雙方為承攬關係為由不負擔連帶賠償責任，才使得政府與民眾開始審視平台與外送員之勞動關係，發現平台與外送員實際上的勞務運作模式，並非如承攬一樣具有高度自主權，依然是受到平台的控制，而雖我國勞動部針對平台實施稽查，要求改善，但對於這類新型的勞動類型，法院對於其勞動關係之判決稀少，尚處不統一之狀況。對比平台經濟發源地美國加州、發展興盛之中國，不僅有大量判決，並且亦有政策針對規定，故本文參考加州與中國在勞動關係判斷之上相關判決，與我國勞動法規與實務運作進行比較與參照，希望能較為我國外送平台與外送員間之勞動關係為參考。本文首先探討何為平台經濟與外送平台之商業運作模式，主要針對Uber Eats與Foodpanda兩大外送平台為分析，並針對外送員於實際執行勞務中可能有受平台控制之處列舉，代入我國勞基法之勞動契約認定，藉以分析外送員是否符合勞基法勞動契約之認定，受有勞基法之各項保障。其次，比較美國加州實務上針對平台從業者之勞動關係認定之判決，參酌美國是如何認定平台勞工的勞動關係，與AB5法案所訂立之保障與所受到的挑戰；另外，中國實務上對於外送員的勞動關係如何認定，與政府如何透過行政保障外送員之勞權，均值得我國參考。最後比較我國與美國加州、中國對於勞動關係認定之差異，探討我國政府與其他兩國針對外送員所做出之保障。於結論中，將學者針對我國外送員勞動關係該如何認定之改善方式加以探討，以期能更加落實外送員之權利保障與勞動身分認定。

關鍵字

平台經濟；外送平台；僱傭；承攬；勞動關係；從屬性； AB5法案；中國判決

並列摘要

In recent years, catering delivery platforms have emerged in Taiwan. They have successfully attracted to many consumers with convenient online meal ordering and physical meal retrieval modes. Many workers have also joined the ranks of delivery personnel, becoming a new "atypical labor service type".workers, The platform and the delivery personnel signed a contracting agreement, although on the surface, the delivery personnel have a high degree of autonomy and are no different from the contracting agreement, but since 2019, there have been successive occurrences of traffic accidents during the delivery of meals. However, the platform did not bear joint and several liability for compensation because of the contract agreement, which made the government and the public begin to examine the labor operation mode of substantial cooperation between the platform and the delivery personnel. It is found that in essence, it is not a high degree of autonomy like contracting, but is still under the control of the platform. Although the Ministry of Labor of Taiwan conducts audits on the platform and requires improvement, whether this is binding on the courts, because judgments are rare, and it is still unclear. Comparing California, the birthplace of the platform economy, and China where the sharing economy is thriving, there are not only a large number of judgments, but also policy regulations. Therefore, this article refers to the judgments of California and China on labor relations judgments, and compares with my country's labor laws and practical operations. For reference, I hope to be more clear about the labor relationship between our foreign delivery platform and delivery personnel. This article first discusses the business operation model of platform economy and delivery platform. It mainly focuses on the analysis of the two major delivery platforms of Uber Eats and Foodpanda, and lists the areas that may be controlled by the platform in the actual execution of labor. Comparing with the labor contract recognition of Taiwan's labor standard law, in order to analyze whether the deliverymans complies with the labor contract recognition of the labor standard law, it is protected by the labor standard law. Secondly, compare the judgments on the labor relationship determination of platform practitioners in California in the United States, consider how the United States recognizes the labor relationship of platform workers and the challenges faced by the AB5 Act; how China determines the labor relationship of delivertmans in practice, and how the government protects the labor rights of delivertmans through administrative measures are worthy of Taiwan's reference. Finally, it compares the differences between Taiwan, California, and China in the identification of labor relations, and discusses the administrative measures that the Taiwan government has made for deliverymans. In the conclusion, the scholars will explore the ways to improve the identification of labor relations of deliverymans in Taiwan, in order to better implement the protection of the rights of the workers and the identification of labor status.

並列關鍵字

Platform Economics ； Food Delivery Platform ； Employment Contract ； Independent Contract ； Labor Relations ； Subordination ； California Assembly Bill 5 ； Chinese verdict