透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.141.100.120
  • 學位論文

勞動基準法中工資定義之法院判決研究 —以對價性與經常性內涵之變遷為中心

A Study of Court Decision on Wage Definition -Focusing on the Change of Consideration and Regular Payments

指導教授 : 王能君

摘要


勞動基準法第2條第3款工資之定義,長久以來即有「經常性給與」是否為判斷工資必要要件之爭論,由於勞動基準法中延長工時工資及平均工資皆以工資作為計算基準。故勞動基準法第2條第3款工資之認定,在實務上有其重要性。 除了工資之判斷標準是否應以經常性給與為必要要件外,對價性與經常性之判斷內涵,亦將影響工資之判斷結果。本論文即以法院判決為中心,整理法院對於工資之判斷標準及對價性、經常性之認定內涵,並輔以行政函釋與學說見解。期能藉由整理歸納,提出合適之工資判斷標準,解決實務常見之判斷爭議,並供未來司法實務判斷工資之思考方向。

並列摘要


Opinions diverge when it comes to whether the term “Regular Payments” is a necessary condition in wage as defined in clause 3 of Article 2 of Labor Standards Act. Due to the fact that the calculation of the Average Wage and other wages are all determined on the basis of wage defined in clause 3 of Article 2 of Labor Standards Act, the definition of wage thus plays an important role in judicial practice. In addition to whether “regular payments” should serve as a necessary condition, the meaning of Consideration and Regular Payments also affect the result of wage evaluation. Therefore, the study first explores the legal cases on the definition of wage by analyzing and summarizing the court judgments related to the standard of Wage evaluation as well as the meaning of Consideration and Regular Payments. Also, the research addresses the opinions from administration and scholars. Lastly, this study attempts to provide some advices on proper standard for wage evaluation, hoping to resolve the disputed legal cases and to serve as references for judicial practical uses in the future.

參考文獻


6. 林更盛,工資的迷思:「恩惠性給與」─評最高法院八十八年台上字第一六三八號判決,月旦法學雜誌,2000年12月。
20. 劉志鵬,論勞工退休金債權(二),律師通訊,第80期,1986年4月。
2. 呂榮海,勞動基準法專題研究(二)工資之意義與範圍,律師通訊,第65期台北,1984年12月。
15. 陳建文,勞動基準法工資定義爭議問題的再思考,臺北大學法學論叢,第70期,2009年6月。
3. 吳啟賓,論勞動基準法上之工資,法令月刊,第41卷第8期,1990年8月1日。

被引用紀錄


蔡瑞紅(2016)。我國勞動基準法第十四條第一項第六款之研究-以法院判決之分析為中心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201602559
林芳君(2016)。勞工保險投保薪資規範之研究〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614062913

延伸閱讀