新就業形態下勞動關係界定的目的性路徑及其裁判標準

平臺用工模式創新暴露出傳統勞動關係界定標準的準確性困境與正當性缺陷。相比於類型化方法，目的性路徑更能應對新就業形態對勞動關係典型形象的頻繁衝破，在阻卻用工“干擾項”的同時矯正司法適用結果對法律目標的偏離。最高人民法院與地方法院已在個案裁判中融入了粗略的目的性思維，但缺乏對“目的為何”的系統論證。為回答這一問題，法經濟學嘗試通過交易成本、科層治理與產權理論對勞動與非勞動關係的邊界劃定提供解釋，但其得出的控制力、組織以及風險分配測試存在適用局限。勞動法干預的目的應在於抵銷勞動力市場買方壟斷結構對勞動者報酬及工作條件施加的向下壓力。因此，勞動關係應僅覆蓋關系型勞動，而排除離散型勞動。人格與組織從屬性應被解釋為契約特定性之外的管理權力歸屬，經濟從屬性則應被解釋為以管理權力為來源的營利性歸屬。

The innovation in platform-based employment models has exposed both the accuracy challenges and legitimacy deficiencies in the traditional criteria for defining employment relationships. Compared to categorical approaches, a purpose-driven approach is more effective in addressing the frequent disruption of typical employment relationship frameworks caused by new employment forms, as it eliminates employment “interference factors” while correcting judicial outcomes that deviate from legal objectives. While the Supreme People's Court and local courts have incorporated rudimentary purposive reasoning in individual cases, they lack a systematic justification for the fundamental question of “what is the purpose”. To address this issue, law and economics has attempted to delineate the boundary between employment and non-employment relationships through theories of transaction costs, hierarchical governance, and property rights, but the resulting control, organization, and risk allocation tests have limited applicability. The goal of labor law intervention should be to counteract the downward pressure imposed on wages and working conditions by the labor monopsony structure. Therefore, employment relationships should only encompass relational work while excluding discrete work. Personal and organizational subordination should be understood as the allocation of managerial direction beyond contractual specificity, while economic subordination should be interpreted as the allocation of profit attributed to managerial direction.