津貼和佣金是否計入工資計算？上訴部分得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Kwan Siu Wa Becky 及其他人 訴 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：唐天寶署理首席法官、倫明高上訴法官、張澤平上訴法官 - 判決日期：2011年3月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三名國泰航空有限公司 (CPA) 空中服務員，Kwan Siu Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera 及 Ho Kit Man Jenny，就《僱傭條例》(Employment Ordinance, Cap. 57) 下假日薪酬及年假薪酬的計算提出上訴。爭議點在於「航線職務津貼」(Line Duty Allowance, LDA)、「地勤職務津貼」(Ground Duty Allowance, GDA)、「外站津貼」(Outport Allowance, OA) 及「免稅品銷售佣金」(Duty Free Sales Commission, DFSC) 是否應計入薪酬計算。勞資審裁處裁定 LDA、GDA 和 DFSC 應計入，但 OA 不應計入。高等法院原訟法庭推翻了勞資審裁處的裁決，駁回了申索人的所有上訴和交叉上訴。本案為申索人對原訟法庭裁決提出的上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於《僱傭條例》第2條所定義的「工資」(wages) 範圍，特別是航線職務津貼、地勤職務津貼、外站津貼和免稅品銷售佣金是否應計入假日薪酬和年假薪酬的計算。申索人認為這些津貼和佣金應計入，而被告國泰航空則主張外站津貼屬於《僱傭條例》第2條中「支付予僱員以償付其因受僱性質而招致的特別開支」的豁免範圍，且部分津貼不符合「每日累算」(daily accrual) 的要求。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，航線職務津貼、地勤職務津貼和免稅品銷售佣金應計入工資計算，因為它們是僱員履行合約職責所獲得的報酬，且符合「每日累算和可計算」(daily accrual and calculable) 的原則，即使它們不是固定月薪。法院引用了 Lisbeth Enterprises Ltd v Mandy Luk 案的原則，並澄清了「每日累算」不要求每日支付。對於外站津貼，法院認為其旨在支付僱員因工作性質而產生的實際開支，即使是非實報實銷，也屬於《僱傭條例》第2條的豁免範圍。對於Ho女士的假日薪酬，法院認為其最低保證月薪結構類似於有加班費的月薪制，加班費是否計入需視乎其是否「持續不變」(constant character) 或符合20%的平均月薪門檻。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - Lisbeth Enterprises Ltd v Mandy Luk (2006) 9 HKFAR 131：確立了工資計算中「每日累算」和「可計算」的原則。 - Lam Pik Shan v Hong Kong Wing On Travel Service Ltd [2008] 3 HKC 578：進一步闡釋了「每日累算」的原則，並指出即使收入每月波動，只要能每日計算，仍可計入工資。 - London Borough of Southwark v O’Brien [1996] IRLR 420：英國案例，關於「開支」定義，法院認為香港法例的解釋應採取類似的常識性方法。 - Star Express Ltd. v. Cheng Tak and Others, HCLA 86/1998：支持將非實報實銷但用於支付實際開支的款項排除在工資計算之外。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定：(1) 允許就航線職務津貼、地勤職務津貼和免稅品銷售佣金提出的上訴；(2) 將Ho女士的法定假日薪酬計算問題發回勞資審裁處，以確定加班費是否符合《僱傭條例》第2(2)條的條件；(3) 駁回就外站津貼提出的上訴。國泰航空須支付申索人60%的上訴訟費及原訟法庭訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《僱傭條例》作為社會立法，旨在保護勞工的宗旨。法院強調，即使報酬以津貼或佣金形式支付，只要是因履行合約職責而獲得，且能每日累算和計算，就應計入「工資」範疇。同時，判決也明確了旨在支付僱員特別開支的津貼，即使是非實報實銷，仍可被豁免。這對僱主在設計薪酬結構時具有重要指導意義，需仔細審視各類津貼的性質，以確保符合法例要求。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Kwan Siu Wa Becky and Others v Cathay Pacific Airways Limited - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Tang Ag CJHC, Le Pichon JA and Cheung JA - Date of Judgment: 17 March 2011 ### Factual Background This case involves three Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (CPA) cabin attendants, Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny, appealing against a decision regarding the calculation of holiday pay and annual leave pay under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57). The core dispute was whether "Line Duty Allowance" (LDA), "Ground Duty Allowance" (GDA), "Outport Allowance" (OA), and "Duty Free Sales Commission" (DFSC) should be included in such calculations. The Labour Tribunal ruled that LDA, GDA, and DFSC should be included, but OA should not. The Court of First Instance overturned the Labour Tribunal's decision, dismissing all appeals and cross-appeals by the claimants. This appeal was brought by the claimants against the decision of the Court of First Instance. ### Key Legal Issues The central legal issue was the scope of "wages" as defined in section 2 of the Employment Ordinance, specifically whether Line Duty Allowance, Ground Duty Allowance, Outport Allowance, and Duty Free Sales Commission should be included in the calculation of holiday pay and annual leave pay. The claimants argued for their inclusion, while the defendant, Cathay Pacific, contended that Outport Allowance fell within the exception in section 2 for "any sum payable to the employee to defray special expenses incurred by him in the nature of his employment," and that some allowances did not meet the "daily accrual" requirement. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that Line Duty Allowance, Ground Duty Allowance, and Duty Free Sales Commission should be included in wage calculations. These were considered remuneration for performing contractual duties and met the criteria of being "daily accruable and calculable," even if not fixed monthly salaries. The court applied the principles from Lisbeth Enterprises Ltd v Mandy Luk, clarifying that "daily accrual" does not necessitate daily payment. For Outport Allowance, the court found it was intended to cover actual expenses incurred by employees due to the nature of their employment, and thus fell within the exception in section 2 of the Employment Ordinance, even if non-accountable. For Ms. Ho's holiday pay, the court considered her minimum guaranteed monthly pay structure analogous to a monthly salary with overtime, where overtime inclusion depends on its "constant character" or meeting the 20% average monthly wage threshold. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedents cited in this case were: - Lisbeth Enterprises Ltd v Mandy Luk (2006) 9 HKFAR 131: Established the principles of "daily accrual" and "calculability" for wage calculations. - Lam Pik Shan v Hong Kong Wing On Travel Service Ltd [2008] 3 HKC 578: Further elaborated on the "daily accrual" principle, indicating that even if income fluctuates monthly, it can be included if calculable daily. - London Borough of Southwark v O’Brien [1996] IRLR 420: An English case on the definition of "expenses," where the court suggested a similar common-sense approach should be adopted in interpreting Hong Kong legislation. - Star Express Ltd. v. Cheng Tak and Others, HCLA 86/1998: Supported the exclusion of non-accountable payments, intended for actual expenses, from wage calculations. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal ruled: (1) The appeal regarding Line Duty Allowance, Ground Duty Allowance, and Duty Free Sales Commission was allowed; (2) The question of Ms. Ho's statutory holiday pay calculation was remitted to the Labour Tribunal to determine if overtime pay met the conditions in section 2(2) of the Employment Ordinance; (3) The appeal regarding Outport Allowance was dismissed. Cathay Pacific was ordered to pay 60% of the claimants' costs for the appeal and the Court of First Instance proceedings. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Employment Ordinance's purpose as social legislation aimed at protecting the workforce. The court emphasized that even if remuneration is paid as allowances or commissions, it should be included in "wages" if earned for performing contractual duties and is daily accruable and calculable. Concurrently, the judgment clarified that allowances intended to cover employees' special expenses, even if non-accountable, can be exempted. This provides important guidance for employers in designing compensation structures, requiring careful consideration of the nature of various allowances to ensure compliance with legal requirements. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.