發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第578號
解釋日期：民國93年5月21日
解釋爭點：勞基法課雇主負擔勞工退休金違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 46 卷 6 期 34-54 頁
考選周刊 第 969 期 3 版
總統府公報 第 6583 號 66-90 頁
法務部公報 第 332 期 116-139 頁

相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、153、23、7 條 ( 36.01.01 )
所得稅法 第 33 條 ( 92.06.25 )
勞動基準法 第 56 條 ( 89.07.19 )
勞動基準法 第 79 條 ( 91.06.12 )
勞動基準法 第 3、53、55、78 條 ( 91.12.25 )
勞工退休準備金提撥及管理辦法 第 2、3、5 條 ( 91.11.20 )

解釋文：
國家為改良勞工之生活，增進其生產技能，應制定保護勞工之法律，實施保護勞工之政策，憲法第一百五十三條第一項定有明文，勞動基準法即係國家為實現此一基本國策所制定之法律。至於保護勞工之內容與方式應如何設計，立法者有一定之自由形成空間，惟其因此對於人民基本權利構成限制時，則仍應符合憲法上比例原則之要求。
    勞動基準法第五十五條及第五十六條分別規定雇主負擔給付勞工退休金，及按月提撥勞工退休準備金之義務，作為照顧勞工生活方式之一種，有助於保障勞工權益，加強勞雇關係，促進整體社會安全與經濟發展，並未逾越立法機關自由形成之範圍。其因此限制雇主自主決定契約內容及自由使用、處分其財產之權利，係國家為貫徹保護勞工之目的，並衡酌政府財政能力、強化受領勞工勞力給付之雇主對勞工之照顧義務，應屬適當；該法又規定雇主違反前開強制規定者，分別科處罰金或罰鍰，係為監督雇主履行其給付勞工退休金之義務，以達成保障勞工退休後生存安養之目的，衡諸立法之時空條件、勞資關係及其干涉法益之性質與影響程度等因素，國家 採取財產刑罰作為強制手段，尚有其必要，符合憲法第二十三條規定之比例原則，與憲法保障契約自由之意旨及第十五條關於人民財產權保障之規定並無牴觸。
勞動基準法課雇主負擔勞工退休金之給付義務，除性質上確有窒礙難行者外，係一體適用於所有勞雇關係，與憲法第七條平等權之保障，亦無牴觸；又立法者對勞工設 有退休金制度，係衡酌客觀之社會經濟情勢、國家資源之有效分配，而為不同優先順序之選擇與設計，亦無違憲法第七條關於平等權之保障。復次，憲法並未限制國家僅能以社會保險之方式，達成保護勞工之目的，故立法者就此整體勞工保護之制度設計，本享有一定之形成自由。勞工保險條例中之老年給付與勞動基準法中之勞工退休金，均有助於達成憲法保障勞工生活之意旨，二者性質不同，尚難謂兼採兩種制度即屬違憲。惟立法者就保障勞工生活之立法選擇，本應隨社會整體發展而隨時檢討，勞動基準法自中華民國七十三年立法施行至今，為保護勞工目的而設之勞工退休金制度，其實施成效如何，所採行之手段應否及如何隨社會整體之變遷而適時檢討改進，俾能與時俱進，符合憲法所欲實現之勞工保護政策目標，以及國內人口年齡組成之轉變，已呈現人口持續老化現象，未來將對社會經濟、福利制度等產生衝擊，因此對既有勞工退休制度及社會保險制度，應否予以整合，由於攸關社會資源之分配、國家財政負擔能力等全民之整體利益，仍屬立法形成之事項，允宜在兼顧現制下勞工既有權益之保障與雇主給付能力、企業經營成本等整體社會條件之平衡，由相關機關根據我國憲法保障勞工之基本精神及國家對人民興辦之中小型經濟事業應扶助並保護其生存與發展之意旨，參酌有關國際勞工公約之規定，並衡量國家總體發展，通盤檢討，併此指明。

理由書：
國家為改良勞工之生活，增進其生產技能，應制定保護勞工之法律，實施保護勞工之政策，憲法第一百五十三條第一項定有明文，勞動基準法即係國家為實現此一基本 國策所制定之法律。至於保護勞工之內容與方式應如何設計，立法者有一定之自由形成空間，惟其因此對於人民基本權利構成限制時，則仍應符合憲法上比例原則之 要求。
按勞動基準法係國家本於保護勞工權益之意旨，規範各項勞動條件最低標準之法律，事業單位固得依事業性質及勞動態樣與勞工另行訂定勞動條件，但仍不得低於勞動 基準法所定之最低標準。至於保護勞工最低勞動條件之內容及其保障方式等如何設計，則立法者有一定之形成空間，勞動基準法第六章有關勞工退休制度，即係國家透過立法方式所積極建構之最低勞動條件之一，旨在減少勞工流動率，獎勵久任企業之勞工，俾使其安心工作，提高生產效率，藉以降低經營成本，增加企業利潤，具有穩定勞雇關係，並使勞工能獲得相當之退休金，以維持其退休後之生活，與憲法第一百五十三條第一項規定國家應實施保護勞工政策之意旨，尚無不符。該法規定雇主應按月提撥一定之勞工退休準備金，並於勞工符合法定要件時按照法定給與標準，一次發給勞工退休金。雇主按月提撥之勞工退休準備金須專戶存儲，不得作 為讓與、扣押、抵銷或擔保之標的，其按月提撥之準備金則匯集為勞工退休基金，由中央主管機關會同財政部指定金融機構保管運用，並由勞雇雙方共同組織委員會 監督之（勞動基準法第五十三條、第五十五條及九十一年六月十二日修正前同法第五十六條規定參照）。就雇主言，以強制其按月提撥勞工退休準備金並為專戶存儲 之規定，作為促使其履行給付勞工退休金義務之手段，雖因此使雇主自主決定契約內容之契約自由以及自由使用、處分其財產之財產權受到限制，惟其目的乃在貫徹 保護勞工之憲法意旨，並衡酌政府財政能力、強化受領勞工勞力給付之雇主對勞工之照顧義務，應屬適當。而透過專戶存儲之方式，即在使勞工退休金之財源與企業 財務分離，避免相互影響或有挪用情事發生，以穩定勞工退休時之資金來源，使勞工領取退休金之權益能獲得充分保障，同時減少雇主須於短期內籌措退休金而衍生 之財務問題，明顯有助於保護勞工權益目的之達成，且雇主負擔勞工退休準備金之提撥比率（依勞工退休準備金提撥及管理辦法第二條規定，勞工退休準備金由各事業單位依每月薪資總額百分之二至百分之十五範圍內按月提撥之）、程序等事項則授權由中央主管機關衡酌實際情形訂定，均具有相當之彈性（同辦法第三條及第五 條規定參照），其負擔提撥責任之同時，又享有一定之稅賦優惠（所得稅法第三十三條規定參照），故其手段仍在合理範圍內；又為促使雇主確實遵行給付勞工退休 金之義務，勞動基準法第七十八條、九十一年十二月二十五日修正前同法第七十九條第一款規定，違反給付退休金或按月提撥退休準備金規定者，分別科三萬元以下 罰金或處二千元以上二萬元以下罰鍰，衡諸立法之時空條件及其所干涉之法益性質暨影響程度，並考量經濟條件居於相對弱勢之勞工，仍難以透過勞動契約或團體協 約方式，與雇主協商合理之退休制度等因素，國家採取財產刑罰作為強制手段，以達成保障勞工退休後生存安養之目的，尚有其必要，符合憲法第二十三條規定之比 例原則，與憲法保障契約自由之意旨及第十五條關於人民財產權保障之規定並無牴觸。
勞動基準法課雇主負擔勞工退休金之給付義務，除性質上確有窒礙難行者外，係一體適用於所有勞雇關係（八十五年十二月二十七日修正之勞動基準法第三條第一項、 第三項規定參照），其雖未考慮事業單位規模之大小、存續期間之長短或勞工受僱期間之久暫而為差異性之適用規定，惟此乃立法者制定法律推動勞工政策時，照顧 久任勞工退休生活所為之考量，與憲法第七條平等權之保障，尚無牴觸；又立法者對勞工設有退休金制度，係基於國民工作之性質、薪給結構、收入來源等各有不同，就退休金制度，衡酌客觀之社會經濟情勢、國家資源之有效分配，為不同優先順序之選擇及設計，故亦未牴觸憲法第七條平等權之保障。
    復次，憲法並未限制國家僅能以社會保險之方式，達成保護勞工之目的，故立法者就此整體勞工保護之制度設計本享有一定之形成自由，勞工保險條例中之老年給付與 勞動基準法中之勞工退休金，均有助於達成憲法保障勞工生活之意旨，二者性質不同，尚難謂兼採兩種制度即屬違憲。惟立法者就保障勞工生活之立法選擇，本應隨社會整體發展而隨時檢討，勞動基準法自七十三年立法施行至今，為保護勞工目的而設之勞工退休金制度，其實施成效如何，所採行之手段應否及如何隨社會整體情勢之變遷而適時檢討改進，俾能與時俱進，符合憲法所欲實現之勞工保護政策目標，以及國內人口年齡組成之轉變，已呈現人口持續老化現象，未來將對社會經濟、 福利制度等產生衝擊，因此對既有勞工退休制度及社會保險制度，應否予以整合，由於攸關社會資源之分配、國家財政負擔能力等全民之整體利益，仍屬立法形成之 事項，允宜在兼顧現制下勞工既有權益之保障與雇主給付能力、企業經營成本等整體社會條件之平衡，由相關機關根據我國憲法保障勞工之基本精神，及國家對人民 興辦之中小型經濟事業應扶助並保護其生存與發展之意旨，參酌有關國際勞工公約之規定，並衡量國家總體發展，通盤檢討，併此指明。

J. Y. Interpretation No.   578
Date：2004.5.21
Issue：Are the provisions of the Labor Standards Act, imposing upon employers the obligation to pay for workers’ retirement pensions, and applying to all forms of employment relationships except for those that are difficult to enforce, constitutional?

Holding：
Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates that the state, in order to improve the livelihood of laborers and to upgrade their productive skills, shall enact laws and implement policies for their protection. The Labor Standards Act is enacted to realize this fundamental national policy. Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in determining the substance and methods of working conditions for workers’ protection. But when a law has the effect of restricting the fundamental rights of the people as a result, the constitutional principle of proportionality should still be followed.

　　Articles 55 and 56 of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the “Act”) respectively provide that employers are responsible for paying for workers’ retirement pensions, and are obligated to deduct a certain amount of money every month and deposit the same into a special account as the reserve fund of workers’ retirement pensions. These provisions, as one of the means to ensure workers’ livelihood, help protect workers’ rights and interests, strengthen employment relationships, promote overall social stability and economic development, and thereby do not exceed the scope of legislative discretion. The resulting restriction on employers’ rights to freely determine the contents of employment contracts and to use and dispose of assets at their own discretion shall be deemed proper under the Constitution, since such restriction helps to accomplish the state’s goal of caring for workers and takes into account the fiscal capabilities of the government, as well as confirming the obligation of the employers—as the recipients of workers’ labor—to take care of their employees. The Act imposes fines on employers who violate the aforesaid compulsory provisions in order to compel employers to fulfill their retirement payment obligations, so as to ensure the livelihood and sustenance of workers after their retirement. In consideration of factors such as the context of the legislation, labor relations, the nature and impact of the interference with legitimate interests, and so forth, it is therefore necessary for the state to prescribe criminal fines. Such a compulsory provision, conforming to the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, does not contradict the constitutional purpose of protecting people’s freedom to enter into contracts or violate people’s property rights protected by Article 15 of the Constitution.

　　The Act imposes upon employers the obligations to pay for workers’ retirement pensions, and it applies to all forms of labor relationships except for those that are difficult to enforce. Therefore, it does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution. The pension system for workers put in place by legislators entails prioritized choices and designs, reflecting legislators’ evaluation of the objective socioeconomic situations as well as the effective distribution of state resources. This, again, does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from adopting means other than the provision of social insurance to accomplish the goal of protecting workers. Legislators, therefore, enjoy a certain degree of discretion in designing the overall system for workers’ protection. Both the old-age benefits prescribed under the Labor Insurance Act and the retirement pension prescribed under the Labor Standards Act help to achieve the constitutional purpose of protecting the livelihood of workers. Since the two systems are different in nature, adoption of both systems can hardly be regarded as a violation of the Constitution. Nonetheless, legislators should consider the overall social changes and accordingly from time to time review the options regarding protecting the livelihood of workers. The Act was enacted and implemented in 1984, and issues such as whether the current workers’ pension system has been effectively implemented, whether this approach needs to be examined, and how it can be improved to correspond to the overall social changes in order to keep up with the pace of changes and to be consistent with the constitutional goal of labor protection, should be reviewed at appropriate times. The decision of whether to integrate the existing workers retirement system and social insurance system in response to the emerging graying trend should also be considered, as such trends result from the changing demographic composition and are likely to impact the socioeconomic structure and the welfare system in the future, and such decisions will include everyone’s interests and involve the issue of the distribution of social resources and the financial capabilities of the state to shoulder such burdens. The relevant authorities should, in addition to striking a balance between retaining the existing protection enjoyed by workers and noting the ability of employers to pay for workers’ retirement pensions and the operational costs of enterprises, conduct a comprehensive examination of the current scheme in accordance with the fundamental principle of the Constitution to protect workers and the purpose of supporting and preserving the survival and development of small- and medium-sized businesses. The provisions of international labor conventions and the overall development of the nation shall also be taken into account.

Reasoning：
Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates that the state, in order to improve the livelihood of laborers and to upgrade their productive skills, shall enact laws and implement policies for their protection. The Labor Standards Act is enacted to realize this fundamental national policy. Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in determining the substance and methods for workers’ protection. But when a law has the effect of restricting the fundamental rights of the people as a result, the constitutional principle of proportionality should still be followed.

　　The Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “the Act”) was enacted for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of workers, providing the minimum standard for work conditions. A business entity may, considering the nature of its business and the form of labor, negotiate the specific terms of the employment contract with workers, but the terms cannot be lower than the minimum standard prescribed by the Act. Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in establishing the minimum standard of working conditions for workers’ protection. And the worker’s retirement pension system provided for in Chapter VI of the Act is one of such minimum working conditions that the state purposefully establishes through legislation, aimed at lowering worker turnover rate, rewarding seniority, enabling the workers to concentrate on their work, and raising productivity, so as to reduce the operational costs of businesses and increase corporate profits. Moreover, the pension system cultivates stable employment relationships, and makes it possible for workers to receive fair retirement pensions to sustain their livelihood after retirement. Therefore, the provisions in Chapter VI of the Act are consistent with Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution, which provides that the state shall implement policies for workers’ protection. The Act stipulates that employers shall deduct a certain amount of money every month and deposit the same into a special account as the reserve fund of workers’ retirement payment, and shall make a lump sum retirement payment in accordance with the payment standard prescribed by the law to workers who meet the required legal standard. According to the Act, the fund in that special account cannot be transferred, attached, or offset against other obligations or used as security. The fund shall become a part of the Labor Retirement Fund; its safekeeping and utilization are managed by the financial institution designated by the central competent authority and the Ministry of Finance, and monitored by a joint committee composed of representatives of both employers and employees (See Articles 53 and 55 of the Act, as well as Article 56 of the Act before the revision on June 12, 2002). The compulsory requirement of monthly deduction to be deposited in a special account as the reserve fund of retirement payment for workers, although a means to require employers to fulfill their legal obligations of taking care of workers, does restrict employers’ rights to freely determine the content of employment contracts and to use and dispose of assets at their own discretion. The requirement, however, shall be deemed proper under the Constitution, as it helps to accomplish the state’s goal of caring for workers and takes into account the fiscal capabilities of the government, at the same time confirming the obligation of employers—as the recipients of workers’ labor—to take care of their employees. The special account, by separating the pension funds from corporate accounts, prevents commingling and misappropriation, thereby securing the financial source for workers’ pensions, protecting workers’ pension-related rights and interests, and reducing employers’ financial problems arising from the need to raise funds for pension payments in a short period of time. This measure apparently helps to achieve the goal of protecting the rights and interests of workers. Furthermore, the central competent authority is authorized to determine, in view of the circumstances, the rate of the employer’s contribution to the workers’ retirement fund (according to Article 2 of the Measures for the Deduction, Deposit and Management of the Workers’ Retirement Funds [the “Measures”], the business entity shall deduct 2 percent to 15 percent of the total monthly wage payment and deposit the same into the workers' retirement fund each month), procedures, and other matters. The Measures confer on the competent government authority a certain flexibility to make the determination (See also Articles 3 and 5 of the Measures). At the same time, employers can enjoy certain tax credits regarding their contribution (See Article 33 of the Income Tax Act). Accordingly, the requirement is a reasonable means to fulfill the goal of protecting workers. As another means to compel employers to perform their retirement payment obligations, Article 78 of the Act and Subparagraph 1 of Article 79 of the earlier version of the Act before its revision on December 25, 2002, respectively prescribe a fine of not more than NT 30,000 dollars for violating the provisions regarding retirement payment, and a fine between NT 2,000 and 20,000 dollars for violating the provisions regarding monthly deduction from and deposit to the fund. Considering factors such as the context of the legislation, the nature and impact of the interference with legitimate interests, and workers’ comparatively disadvantageous position in the economy which makes it difficult for them to negotiate a reasonable pension arrangement with employers through labor contracts or collective bargaining agreements, it is therefore necessary for the state to prescribe fines in order to accomplish the goal of protecting the livelihood and sustenance of workers after their retirement. Such a compulsory provision, conforming to the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, does not contradict the constitutional purpose of protecting people’s freedom to enter into contracts or violate people’s property rights protected by Article 15 of the Constitution.

　　The Act imposes upon employers the obligations to pay for workers’ retirement pensions, and applies to all forms of labor relationships except for those that are difficult to enforce in nature (See Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3 of the act, revised on December 27, 1996). Although such a broad application of the Act fails to consider factors such as the size of the business unit, the length of the employment contract, or the duration of the employment relationship, it reflects the legislators’ intent, when enacting the Act and designing labor policies, to care for the livelihood of all senior workers after their retirement. Therefore, such an application does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution. Moreover, the pension system for workers put in place by legislators, a decision considering factors such as the nature of work, wage structure, income source, objective socioeconomic situations, and effective distribution of the state’s resources, reflects legislators’ prioritized choices and designs. This, again, does not contradict the equal protection principle of Article 7 of the Constitution.

　　The Constitution does not prohibit the state from adopting means other than social insurance to accomplish the goal of protecting workers. Legislators, therefore, enjoy a certain degree of discretion in designing the overall system for workers’ protection. Both the old-age benefits prescribed under the Labor Insurance Act and the retirement pension prescribed under the Act help to achieve the constitutional purpose of protecting the livelihood of workers. Since the two systems are different in nature, adoption of both systems can hardly be considered to be in violation of the Constitution. Nonetheless, legislators should consider the overall social changes and accordingly from time to time review the options regarding protecting the livelihood of workers. The Act was enacted and implemented in 1984, and issues such as whether the current workers’ pension system has been effectively implemented, whether this approach needs to be examined, and how it can be improved to correspond to the overall social changes in order to keep up with the pace of changes and to be consistent with the constitutional goal of labor protection, should be reviewed at appropriate times. The decision of whether to integrate the existing workers retirement system and social insurance system in response to the emerging graying trend should also be considered, as such trends result from the changing demographic composition and are likely to impact the socioeconomic structure and the welfare system in the future, and such decisions will include everyone’s interests and involve the issue of the distribution of social resources and the financial capabilities of the state to shoulder such burdens. The relevant authorities should, in addition to striking a balance between retaining the existing protection enjoyed by workers and noting the ability of employers to pay for workers’ retirement pensions and the operational costs of enterprises, conduct a comprehensive examination of the current scheme in accordance with the fundamental principle of the Constitution to protect workers and the purpose of supporting and preserving the survival and development of small- and medium-sized businesses. The provisions of international labor conventions and the overall development of the nation shall also be taken into account.

' Translated by Dr. C.Y. Huang of Tsar & Tsai Law Firm.