대법원이 최근 공기업 집단성과상여금(경영평가성과급)의 (평균)임금성을 인정하는 판결들을 선고한 이후, 사기업 집단성과상여금의 (평균)임금성에 대한 논의가 활발해졌다.
사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 성과상여금의 임금성에 대한 선행판결들을 보면 문제점이 있다. 임금성과 평균임금성을 준별하지 않고 있다. 근로의 대가인지, 근로계약 등에 의한 지급의무가 인정되는지 여부만이 임금의 요건이다. 대법원이 중시하는 지급의 계속·정기성이나 지급사유의 사전확정성은 평균임금에서 제외되는 임시로 지급되는 임금을 판단하는 요소라 할 것이다.
개인성과상여금의 임금성을 인정하는 것이 주류적인 선행판례의 태도인 데 타당하다고 생각한다. 공기업 집단성과상여금의 평균임금성을 인정한 선행판례들은 집단성과상여금이 근로의 대가임을 전제로 한다. 타당하다고 생각한다. 그렇다면 사기업 집단성과상여금도 근로의 대가인 임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다.
임금성을 인정하더라도 평균임금성이 있는지는 더 따져보아야 한다. 평균임금의 판단요소인 지급의 계속·정기성과 지급사유의 사전확정성이 어떤 관계에 있는지도 문제이다. 둘 중 어느 하나만 인정되더라도 임시로 지급되는 임금이라고 볼 수는 없으므로 평균임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다.After the Korean Supreme Court recently rendered decisions that collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of public enterprise corresponds to average wages, debates over the issue of whether collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of private companies can also be recognized as average wages have flourished.
In reviewing the precedents dealing with the issue of whether a performance bonus paid by employer to employee has the nature of wages, some problems can be seen in these decisions. Namely, they did not distinguish between wages and average wages. The only requirements for performance bonus to satisfy to constitute as wages are that ① they should be provided as remuneration for work, and ② payment obligation should be based on labor contract, etc. Factors of continuity and regularity of payment or confirmation of the ground for payment, which the Court has placed emphasis on, are standards applied in determining whether certain wages are paid on a temporary basis. If wages are paid on a temporary basis, they are not included in average wages.
The mainstream view held by the precedents recognizes the wages nature of personal performance bonus, which, in my view, is reasonable. The precedents which have admitted the average wages nature of collective performance bonus of public enterprise presuppose that collective performance bonus is paid as remuneration for work. Then, it is rational to find that collective performance bonus of private companies also corresponds to wages as remuneration for work.
Even if the wage nature of collective performance bonus of private companies is admitted, the issue of whether such bonus corresponds to average wages should also be considered. We should review the relationship between ① continuity and regularity of payment and ② confirmation of the ground for payment, which are the standards for determining the nature of average wages. In case either one of the two standards is admitted, performance bonus cannot be considered to have been paid on a temporary basis and, therefore, collective performance bonus of private companies should be found to corresponds not only to wages but to average wages.