潘文才 訴 永聯環球洗衣廠有限公司

1）     自1993年起，與訟人公司之報稅表內稱上訴人為僱員；

2）     上訴人為與訟人做事，一直享有全部的法定僱員權益；

3）     上訴人沒有僱用工人的權力；上訴人及其下工人皆由與訟人公司把工資計算出來再直接支付給他們；

4）     上訴人不用提供用具。

（i）     上訴人曾提交了利得稅報稅表，並得到一個有關其為與訟人公司做事的商業登記編號；

(ii)     自1991年4月30日開始，上訴人便有一份與與訟人公司協定的書面分包合約；而審裁處裁定此份合約還未有取銷；

(iii)根據該份書面分包合約規定，上訴人必須對粗製劣造的產品給予與訟人賠償；而上訴人最少也賠償了一次；

(iv)根據該份書面分包合約規定，上訴人除可得到以計件工資率計算的工資外，另可得到一種固定“領班津貼”的酬報；酬報起初是每月4,000元，及後由於計算率普遍偏低才減至每月3,000元。此情況延到1997年便終止了。

        “然而，此非案件的結局所在。大家須要考慮，上訴人在這種關係中的權益是否會有賺取利潤之機會抑或會有招致損失之風險。與訟人方面的陳詞指出，上訴人可以運用一個既謹慎而富技巧的管理方式，把需要執行那些所需任務的工人數目降低，從而增大可得的利潤。這祇是純屬猜度，並無證據支持。再者，我們也看不到會有甚麼損失風險可言。(添加強調)

“另外一個有助解決的方式，就是大法官Cooke在《Market Investigations v. Minister of Social Security [1962] 2 Q.B. 173》一案第184頁中所設的論證假定：“上訴人當時是否為了本身利益來經營生意？我們認為他並非如此。他當時獨為與訟人工作、工作地方是與訟人的，而且是使用與訟人的機器在與訟人的物料上施工。千真萬確的，就是他擁有大權，可以聘用工人、解僱工人；但是，各間公司明顯份屬僱員的高級職員，莫不擁有這樣的權力。看來，真正的情況是：他既是一群人的領班，當然就是一名工頭；而他和工人全部都是由與訟人僱用的。”

           “But that is by no means the end of the case.  One has to consider whether the appellant’s interest in the relationship involved any prospect of profit or risk of loss.  It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appellant could by careful and skilful management reduce the number of workers needed to carry our the requisite tasks and therefore the profit to him would have increased.  This is sheer speculation, unsupported by evidence.  Furthermore we can see no risk of loss. (Emphasis added.)

           “Another helpful approach is that postulated by Cooke, J. in Market Investigations v. Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 Q.B. 173 at p. 184: “Was the appellant carrying on business on his own account?  In our opinion he was not.  He was working exclusively for the respondent, on the respondent’s premises, using the respondent’s machinery to work on the respondent’s material.  True it is that he had wide powers of engaging and dismissing workers, but so do senior officials in companies who are clearly employees.  The reality of the situation appears to be that, as the leader of a gang, he was a foreman and that he and the workers were all employed by the respondent.”

“可以在此說明，合同各方的關係是否屬於僱主與僱員的關係還是屬於另由法律所斷定的關係，乃取決於合同所賦予的權利和合同所委以的職責。”

“It may be stated here that whether the relation between the parties to the contract is that of master and servant or otherwise is a conclusion of law dependent upon the rights conferred and the duties imposed by the contract.”

“若……這種關係須由一項調查及評估執行工作的實際情況來決定，則現時必須視作已肯定確立了一點，即要決定當時是以一名僱員身分抑或是一名獨立承判商身分執行工作的這個問題，上訴法院當認定是一個要由原審法庭裁決的事實問題。”

“where, …the relationship has to be determined by an investigation and evaluation of the factual circumstances in which the work is performed, it must now be taken to be firmly established that the question of whether or not the work was performed in the capacity of an employee or as an independents contractor is to be regarded by an appellate court as a question of fact to be determined by the trial court.” (Emphasis added.)

“上訴法院及上議院的一系列根據英國《勞資賠償法》的判決中經已裁定，若郡(州)法院法官根據僱員合約來裁定一名工人是屬僱員或裁定非屬僱員，則此是一個事實問題的裁定，上訴法院祇有在沒有證據支持該項裁定的情況下，方可干預。”

“it was held in a series of decisions in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords under the English Workmen’s Compensation Acts that a finding by a County Court judge that a workman was, or was not, employed under a contract of service was a question of fact with which an appellate court could only interfere if there was no evidence to support his finding. ”