論公司法第29條第1項在勞動契約判斷上之定位──兼評最高法院106年度台上字第983號民事判決

Research on the Relationship Between Article 29 Paragraph 1 of Company Act and the Determination of Labor Contract: From the Supreme Court Judgment Case No.106, Tai Shang Zi, 983

位居「經理」一職的工作者，通常被賦予一定的管理權限與責任，但非可一概而論，故實務上仍時常發生之爭議為，職稱為經理之勞務給付者究竟是否為勞工，有無勞動基準法的適用，而此一判斷具有相當之困難。相較於其他案例類型，經理人契約是否為勞動契約之判斷，有一重要特徵為涉及公司法第29條第1項之規定。該法條文字所使用之「委任」一詞，常被用以認定經理人與公司間為委任契約關係而無勞動基準法之適用。然而，公司法為何透過法律規定定性經理人與公司間之法律關係？是否有意使公司法上之經理人不受勞動基準法之適用？為釐清前述問題，除了實務見解之整理外，本文並透過公司法修訂過程之分析，考察公司法與民法規定在經理人契約上之相互關係，最後發現公司法第29條第1項之規定所關注之面向，與是否有勞動基準法之適用無涉，不應逕以此認定公司法上之經理人即無勞動基準法之適用。

Managerial personnel are usually endowed with the rights to make decisions but to different extents. Therefore, there is still often a dispute in practice whether managerial personnel are workers with the application of Labor Standards Act. In comparison with the other type of cases, one distinguishing characteristic of the managerial personnel cases is the relationship with Article 29 Paragraph 1 of Company Act. The word “mandate” in the article is often applied to identify the type of contract and come to the conclusion that managerial personnel in Company Act have no application to Labor Standards Act. However, the reason why the Company Act provides that the contract between the managerial personnel and the company is a contract of mandate is not clear and also if it is relevant to the application of Labor Standards Act. To figure it out, this thesis not only analyzes the opinions of the Court, but also investigates the evolution of Article 29 Paragraph 1 of Company Act as well as its relationship with the relevant articles in the Civil Code. In the end, this thesis points out that Article 29 Paragraph 1 of Company Act is not involved with the application of Labor Standards Act. As a result, the contract between the managerial personnel and the company shall not be immediately identified as a contract of mandate by Article 29 Paragraph 1.