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

Abstract

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。

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.