공공기관 경영평가성과급의 임금성

This article looks at two recent cases of the Supreme Court on whether Pay for Business Performance of Public Institutions(PBPPI), which is a type of pay paid to all employees based on annual ratings of the Institutions. In the two cases, the Supreme Court recognized the wage nature of the PBPPI. The Supreme Court did so by applying the three-criteria rule for the determination of the wage-nature of a particular pay, which the Court has been using in other cases. However, this article confirms that the Supreme Court's judgment in the cases affects the meaning of the three-criteria rule in relation to performance-based pay. The Supreme Court's judgment in the recent two cases presupposes a change in the meaning of the third criterion of the determination rule, which is the obligatory nature of the pay. The Supreme Court has already recognized the obligatory nature of pay for individual performance in the sense that the company can not refuse the payment if the payment requirement is satisfied. Now the Court has extended to apply this sense of the third criterion to pay for collective performance like the PBPPI in the two cases. In addition, this article confirms that the change in the meaning of the third criterion has made the second criterion(the regularity and continuity of a pay) meaningless. Next, this article points out that the Supreme Court's judgment in the two cases does not mention the first criterion of the three-criteria rule, which is the relatedness of pay to providing work. The Supreme Court did not so even though the PBPPI seems less closely related to providing work than pay for individual performance. This attitude of the Supreme Court can be interpreted to show that the Court presupposes that the PBPPI meets the first criterion. However, this article further argues that the relatedness of all types of pay for collective performance to providing work, including the PBPPI, should be acknowledged if they can not be denied as a collaborative outcome of providing work.