【作者】 张翼飞；

【导师】 董保华；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 经济法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 目前，公司管理人员作为我国劳动法倾斜保护的对象，在劳动法上被视为普通劳动者适用劳动法。然而这种无视其身份属性特殊性的错位适用，已经在劳动法实践中产生了诸多扭曲的现象——高管离职时索取百万天价经济补偿金，公司老总索要加班补偿的争议频发，而其他如人事经理等中层管理人员的劳动者身份更是极少受到质疑，工会内部资方代表担任工会主席职务现象几乎已经习以为常。更有甚者，劳动法对公司管理人员的一致保护，还造成了公司可以解聘公司法上的高管人员，却无法解雇劳动法上的高管人员的怪异现象，严重影响了公司法上管理层制衡机制效用的发挥，即便《劳动合同法》的颁布也未缓解这种现象。新法对经济补偿金设置封顶限制后，上层管理人员索要双倍工资的案件又逐年剧增。管理人员具有的特殊职能，使其兼具“裁判员”和“运动员”的身份，而在不同层级的管理人员中，这两重身份比重的不同又使得他们在劳动关系内部的强弱势地位产生不同，从而也将影响到劳动法对其适用的程度。作为应当以保护劳动关系中的弱势劳动者为使命的劳动法，在调整公司管理人员时，则显现出极为不和谐的一面，因为这些人经常处于劳动关系中的强势一方。有鉴于此，本文即以对“公司管理人员”这类具有双重身份属性者在劳动法上的应然地位为主线，展开对公司管理人员的劳动法适用问题研究。围绕矫正我国在管理人员适用问题上的误区，本文沿着对劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员的实践需要、理论基础、域外法制三个层面展开充分论证，最后在综合论证的基础上，对我国劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员提出了思考性建议。第一章是关于本文论题研究缘起的阐述。本文研究公司管理人员的劳动法适用问题的根本价值，就在于为解决我国由于劳动法未对公司管理人员与其他普通劳动者在适用上作出任何区分而导致的现实冲突提供思路。本章对我国劳动法错位适用公司管理人员的具体表现，从法律制度以及司法实务中的现实情况两方面进行了分析，明确了我国劳动法重新定位公司管理人员适用的实践需要。本章首先对劳动法适用范围问题的极端案件——“中国首富”适用劳动法倾斜保护的案件始末及核心法律争点进行了阐述。围绕该案娃哈哈公司对法律关系的根本性改造策略的讨论，揭示出娃哈哈之所以在中国得以将一个民商事关系改造为劳动关系，将民商事合同改造为劳动合同，并获得中国司法机关支持，正是由于我国和国际劳动立法在对公司管理人员适用问题上的不接轨。而这种不接轨的核心问题，就在于我国劳动法适用主体的界定制度太过粗糙，对公司管理人员这类群体的特殊性未予关注。而“中国首富”案的出现并非个例，文章从我国司法实践中，通过对搜索的142个涉及管理人员主张劳动法保护的案件进行分析，解读出司法实践对管理人员适用劳动法时出现的各种困难及矛盾，总结并指出我国目前司法实践陷入窘境的根本原因，在于立法上没有对公司管理人员与普通劳动者作出区分对待，而《劳动合同法》的特殊条款也未见效，最后得出解决司法实践困境的根本途径，在于从法制层面予以改良。第二章是本文论题的理论依据，由于对公司管理人员的劳动法适用问题研究实际隐含了劳动法的特殊属性，公司管理人员特殊性以及劳动法特殊属性与管理人员特殊性之间关系三个理论命题，因而本章即从这三个方面逐一展开分析。首先，本文认为，社会法是以社会本位为特征的第三法域，劳动法是以社会本位为特征的第三法域——社会法的部门法，劳动法的本位思想和根本价值取向应与社会法相一致。在利益本位方面，劳动法以社会利益为本位，着重对劳动者生存权的保障。在调整对象方面，劳动法在正视雇佣者和劳动者客观差异性的基础上，锁定劳动者为调整对象。在立法目标方面，劳动法采取倾斜立法的方式对形式平等而实质不平等的劳动关系进行矫正，倾斜保护弱者达到实质平等。正基于此，劳动法形成了一套在宏观、中观和微观层次上分层调整的特殊模式。劳动法上这一整套调整模式的正义基础和效用发挥，均依赖于对劳动法上“弱者”的抽象，劳动关系中的“弱者”是保护的对象，而“强者”是应当约束的对象，强弱界限必须明确，这是探讨公司管理人员在劳动法上地位的理论基点。在此前提下，文章对管理人员的特殊性进行了全面分析，从管理学的角度来看，公司管理人员具有三大核心职能：决策、领导和监控。从马克思时代对管理二重性的认识，到现代管理劳动脱离资本家而职业化，再到现代管理劳动高度复杂化、分层化的形成，和不同层级管理人员间职能的高度差异性，通过对管理劳动发展历史的研究，文章指出管理这种劳动形式与普通劳动，以及管理劳动在不同层级间的职能区别是劳动法应当对其差异化适用的根源所在。而这两重差异，正是构成本文认为劳动法应对管理人员与普通劳动者作出差异化规范，同时依据管理层级的不同，针对不同层级管理人员进行差异化规范的理论依据。第三章中本文从宏观层面对公司管理人员劳务供给关系的应然法律适用进行了阐述。鉴于劳动法以及公司管理人员的特殊性，足见对于公司管理人员与公司间劳务供给关系的法律调整，不能仅依赖劳动法，劳动法不适合，也不能够承担起对全部公司管理人员劳务供给关系的法律调整重任。劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员的状态不外乎三种，全排除、全保护，以及部分排除部分保护。当劳动法适用全排除标准时，就会产生被排除对象的法律适用问题。可见，劳动法适用范围的重新厘定，是一个体系化工程，不仅要确定应将哪些法律关系划入劳动法体系调整，也要对划出劳动法调整体系者的法律适用框架进行厘定。因而，本章着重对民商事法律和劳动法在公司管理人员劳务供给关系上的调整分工进行了阐述。通过对各国和地区劳务供给关系类型和法律适用体系的比较和总结，可以看出在民商法和劳动法间，对于劳务供给关系的调整均有着“一出一入”的整体架构，劳动法仅将一部分符合法律调整关系特征的劳务供给关系纳入调整，而将其他关系保留在民商事法律调整框架内。对于公司管理层人员而言，其劳务供给关系的基础在于委托代理关系，基于此，域外公司法对于以委托代理关系为基础的劳务供给关系法律性质形成了两种学说，即委任说和雇佣说两类。同时，域外公司法还对公司管理人员和劳务供给合同进行了特殊化的规范。本文认为，不论采何种理论，公司法作为民商事法律规范，对部分公司管理人员的劳务关系作出“入”的规范同时，就预示着劳动法对该类关系应作出“出”的规范，在整体上予以协调。而事实上，由于公司管理人员的特殊身份，劳动法上的强弱势不平衡状态在其与公司间的劳务供给关系中并不正向存在。公司法对管理人员设置了特殊的约束机制，任用资格条件和解任规范。从域外公司法的理论和规范来看，由公司法对管理人员的劳务供给关系进行调整也更具合理性。而基于法律体系的协调性要求，劳动法则应在公司法的调整范围内作出“出”的规范。第四章至第六章采用横向比较和纵向比较的方式，对域外劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员的模式进行了综合而全面的阐述。本文认为，目前域外劳动法上对管理人员的特殊处理方式主要有两种，可以概括为正面界定模式以及反面排除模式，本文在第四章中着重介绍了正面界定的处理模式。正面界定实际上是劳动法对雇佣者和劳动者进行界定的一般路径，各国和地区通过明确劳动法上界定雇佣者和劳动者的判定标准，运用此标准对管理人员在个案中的法律关系特征进行一一审查，如符合劳动关系特征的即属于劳动者加以保护，符合雇佣者特征的则予以排除保护，因此正面界定模式的核心，是劳动法上界定劳动关系的标准。本章首先对各国和地区劳动法上关于劳动合同及合同主体——雇主和雇员的定义进行了梳理，从中总结出各国和地区劳动关系主体界定的一般路径——从属性标准，并指出从属性标准的本质内涵是雇主控制权能在劳动关系中的反映。具体化为判断标准，这种控制权能就是人格从属性标准，或称控制标准。随后文章以德国、日本、台湾、英国、法国和美国的人格从属性标准为例，说明人格从属性标准在厘定劳动法倾斜保护对象上的重要意义。但随着从属性标准从单一“人格从属性标准”发展为“综合审查标准”，人格从属性标准中雇主与雇员对称性逐渐减弱，虽然这种发展趋势更好的体现了劳动法倾斜保护弱势劳动者的立法目的，但该标准却已不足以作为劳动法差异化适用管理人员的标准。最后，本章以台湾地区对经理人身份界定作为正面界定模式的主要例说，对台湾理论和司法实务中正面界定模式的经验进行了详细介绍。实际上，正面界定模式本身的局限性，也成为反面排除模式产生与发展的重要依据。第五章着重对域外劳动法上的反面排除模式进行综合介绍和对比。域外劳动法在正面对劳动关系主体界定的基础上，往往还要通过排除规定，对于不属于劳动法调整对象但落入正面界定模式范围的人群加以反面排除。反面排除规定是各国和地区针对公司管理人员的特殊性而对其在劳动法上做出的特殊处理。对反面排除规定的研究是本文的主要创新点，也是本文核心观点的集中体现。本章对各国和地区反面排除模式的研究着重在两大方面，首先，文章对域外劳动法上关于公司管理人员的用语，及法律规范中对管理人员的界定进行了综合比较，指出立法上各国和地区一般采用高度概括式的规范，尽管用语上差异巨大，但多能够反映出管理人员的层级特征，对高层管理人员往往予以普遍排除，而对中层甚至低层管理人员的排除则差异性很大。其次，文章对域外劳动法排除公司管理人员保护的范围进行了归纳，综合来看，排除范围主要有全面排除、排除工时法适用、排除集体劳动法适用、排除解雇保护法适用四种立法例。最后，文章对域外反面排除模式的另一核心内容，关于排除公司管理人员的界定标准进行了详细的阐释。对各国和地区反面排除模式的横向比较，为我国立法提供了丰富的参考借鉴，尤其是各国和地区在制度设计中的共性部分，更应当成为我国制定排除标准重要的参考指针。与第五章的横向比较相呼应，第六章则是以美国对公司管理人员排除标准的演进和发展为脉络进行纵向比较。与我国统一模式劳动立法不同，美国实行单行式劳动立法，而关于公司管理人员的排除规定在美国最重要的两部单行劳动法，《国家劳资关系法》（NLRA）和《公平劳动标准法案》（FLSA）中均具有异常重要的地位。NLRA主要规范集体劳动关系，而FLSA则是美国劳动关系领域的基准法。然而两部法律不论从排除管理人员的用语，到排除标准的设计，以及实务中对排除人员的界定标准，均沿着完全不同的路径展开。鉴于两部法案的效力相同而排除制度设计的思路不同，本章中对两部法律中的排除标准沿革也进行了分别阐述。首先，NLRA的管理人员排除标准主要体现在判例法层面，NLRA排除标准的沿革充分展示了判例法与成文法相互作用螺旋上升不断完善的过程。对NLRA排除标准的研究，提示我国谨慎制定排除标准的重要性。其次，FLSA的规范以成文规定为主，管理人员排除标准主要集中在联邦法规汇编中（C.F.R.第541节）。因此文章也着重对FLSA的成文排除标准进行了研究。在对FLSA制定背景，排除阶层的划分路径展开研究后，文章重点对FLSA排除规则以2004年为界划分为新旧两套规则，并基于此进行比较研究，分析了旧规则在实践中产生的问题，各界对旧规则改良的建议，以及新规则最终对这些问题采取了哪些完善措施，这对我国制定排除标准有非常重要的参考性。第七章是本文的灵魂所在，本章对前六章的论证内容进行了综合分析，并基于综合比较得出的结论，对我国劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员的制度构建提出了建议。文章认为，我国应首先明确劳动法立法的总体思路，只有采取“劳动者分层”思路，摒弃目前劳动法所采取的“劳资对立”立法思路，对劳动法的倾斜保护对象进行“掐头”而非“去尾”，下移立法保护重心，才能使保护对象符合劳动法的立法目标，实现实质正义。而“劳动者分层”的立法思路，具有社会学、管理学、劳动法学三个维度的理论基础。运用该思路，本文在总体上对我国劳动法依据管理人员的不同层级而予以差异化适用进行了原则定位，并以此作为具体差异化界定标准制度构建的准绳。文章建议，应依据不同层级管理人员的职能差异而将三个层次管理人员分别作出以下定位，高层管理人员应原则上排除劳动法保护，低层管理人员应原则上适用劳动法保护，而中层管理人员则可以通过具体标准设置，适当降低劳动法的保护力度。在原则定位的基础上，本文提出了我国劳动法差异化适用公司管理人员的具体模式选择。文章指出了单独采用正面界定模式的弊端及其局限性，同时再次以台湾正面界定立法模式为例，说明正面界定模式在台湾司法实务中的困境，从而得出单纯以正面界定模式厘定公司管理人员，差异化适用劳动法的路径，在我国并不具备可行性的结论。并建议我国应当采用对普通劳动者正面界定，对公司管理人员反面排除的综合界定标准。文章在最后对我国公司管理人员反面排除模式的制度设计，抛砖引玉的给出了建议。在排除范围方面，文章指出，我国应在劳动基准法中有关工资、工时法、集体劳动法、以及解雇保护法中选择性排除适用。在排除标准的制定上，应当采取以“薪酬标准”为主，“职责标准”为辅的设计思路，并对“薪酬标准”和“职责标准”的具体制度进行了构思。更多还原

【Abstract】 Currently, corporate managerial personnel, just as other ordinary employees, arefully protected under China’s labor law without any differentiation on the applicabilityof labor law. However, ignoring the particularity of their identity in application oflabor law to managerial personnel has resulted in a lot of distorted phenomenon inlabor law practices——high level management can request severance pay amount tomillions when facing discharge, CEO can demand for overtime payment, let alonemiddle level management like personnel manager, whose employee status has rarelybeen questioned. Also, it is quite normal for the representatives of employer in laborunion to perform concurrent duties as the union president, who inherently have theresponsiblity to represent the labor. Even worse, the protection of managerialpersonnel against unlawful dismiss under labor law has placed the corporation in anawkward position. It is lawful to discharge a corporate officer under corporate law,whereas unlawful under labor law, that has tremendously influenced the effectivenessof balancing mechanism within corporate governance. Even though the newlypromulgated “labor contract law” added a cap on the amount of severance pay, whichintended to resolve the problem, cases involving claims of de facto labor relations thattargeting the doubled salary punitive damage under the law not only emerged, but increased dramatically year by year. The dual function of managerial personnel hasmade them both "referees" and "athletes". Among different levels of management,these two hats’ proportion are differentiated thus makes them stand on opposite sidesas “powerful” vs.“weak” in labor relations, which consequently determines thedegree of protection under the labor law. The application of labor law to corporatemanagerial personnel has lead to a lot unreasonable results, since the legislativepurpose of labor law is to give more legal protection to the “weak” side in laborrelations, while managerial personnel are usually fully or partially belongs to the“powerful” side.Attribute to the dual identity of corporate managerial personnel, this papertherefore purposed on responding to the theme “the degree of labor law protection forthem” through analyzing their position in labor relations. In order to focus on thecorrection of improper application of labor law to those corporate managerialpersonnel not belonging to the “weak” side in labor relations, this paper logicallyargued in three main aspects, the practical needs, the theoretical basis, and theextra-territorial legislative and judicial experiences. On the basis of fully expoundingon the subject, this paper finally rationalized the differential application of labor lawto corporate managerial personnel in China, and made several suggestions onestablishment of relevant legal system.Chapter Ⅰ fully expounds the reason for this study. The fundamental value of thestudy on the applicability of labor law to corporate managerial personnel is to provideideas on resolving the actual conflict caused by equal treatment of corporatemanagerial personnel with other ordinary employees under labor law. According tothe analysis both from the legal system and the realities of judicial practice on theimproper application of labor law, this chapter made it clear that the practicaldemands for China’s labor law re-positioning corporate managerial personnel arepretty strong. This chapter first examined the core legal point of contention describedof an extreme case, in which labor law protection applies to the "the richest man in China". In this case, Wahaha fundamentally transformed the legal relationship fromcivil and commercial relation to labor relation, a civil and commercial contract to alabor contract, and finally transformed the case from a civil dispute to a labor dispute.The judiciary support of Wahaha’s strategy on the labor dispute contention in China,precisely demonstrated that China’s labor legislation has fell far behind theinternational labor legislation on the applicability issue of corporate managerialpersonnel. The paper then concludes that the occurring of this practicing gap, ismainly attribute to China’s labor legislation, which only roughly defines theapplicable subject of labor law, without paying enough attention to the particularity ofsome special groups such as corporate managerial personnel. In fact, the Wahaha caseis not a unique in China’s judicial practice. After studying on142cases concerningmanagement personnel’s request for labor law protection, the paper finds that thedifficulties and contradictions encountered in judicial practices are all attributes toimproper labor legislation. Since China’s labor legislation does not make anydistinction between applicability of company managers and ordinary workers, and theseverance pay cap clause of Labor Contract Law is ineffective as well, therefore thepaper concludes that the fundamental way to solve the plight in judicial practice is tomake improvement upon the legislative level.Chapter Ⅱ serves as the theoretical basis of the study. Since the thesis of thispaper has three implied theoretic aspects, the special attributes of labor law, theparticularities of corporate managerial personnel, and the relationship between thespecial attributes of labor law and the particularities of corporate managerialpersonnel. This chapter analyzes these three aspects along this logical line. Firstly,social law is the area of law that origins from commingling of public law and privatelaw, however, it differentiates from both of them and features the community needs.Labor law is a subarea of social law, makes which has characteristics of social law.Therefore the fundamental value orientation of Labor law should be consistent withsocial law. Labor law purposes to serve the interests of the community, hence emphasizes on employees’ rights to subsistence. Also, labor law directly faces theobjective differences between employer and employee as “powerful” vs.“weak”, andtherefore locking the “weak” employees as legislative protected object. Accordingly,in order to rebalancing the actual inequality of the two sides, labor law specially givestilted legislative protection to those “weak” employees. Based on the aboveconsiderations, labor law has developed a special mode of stratification adjustments inthe macro, meso and micro levels. Obviously, the basis of justice that labor laweffectively served is depended on the definition of the “weak” employee, in otherwords, the standard on the “level of weak” so that law has to interfere in."Weak"should be protected, and “powerful” should be constrained, the strength of theboundaries must be clear, this is the theoretical basis to explore the applicability oflabor law on corporate managerial personnel. Under this premise, the paper onconducted a comprehensive analysis on the particularity of corporate managerialpersonnel. From the view of management science, managerial personnel have threecore functions, policy-making, leadership and control. The understanding ofmanagement has experienced three dramatically evolution stages. The first stage is theMarx’s time, when the duality of management has just been understood. The secondstage is the development of modern management which made management separatedfrom capitalists and became a profession. And in the third stage, the modernmanagement of labor became highly complex, hierarchical, and functions of differentlevels of management are positively correlated to the height of the level. Therefore, aconclusion can be drawn from a historical dimension of view, that the differentiateapplication of labor law is fundamentally origins from the differences betweenmanagerial personnel and ordinary employees, and also from the differences amongdifferent levels of managerial personnel. Two-fold difference is served as theoreticalbasis of the differentiate treatment that labor law should provide, to managerialpersonnel and ordinary employees, and to different levels of management accordingto the function differentiation. Chapter Ⅲ analyzes the application of law to the labor supply relations betweencorporate managerial personnel and the company from macro-level. In view of thespecial nature of labor law and corporate managerial personnel, which showsobviously that the regulation of labor supply relationship between managerialpersonnel and the company can not only rely on labor law, labor law does not fit, norable to assume the burden to regulate all managerial personnel’s labor supplyrelationship. There are no more than three scenarios of differentiation treatment on theapplication issue here——full exclusion, full protection, as well as partial exclusionof some protection. When labor law applies to the full exclusion scenario, the problemof application of law to the excluded labor supply relation will emerge. Apparently,redefine the scope of application of labor law is a systematic project; it not only has todemarcate the applicable boundaries of labor law, but to draw the legal framework ingeneral as well. Therefore this chapter focuses on task arrangement between civil andcommercial law division and labor law division on the regulation of the labor supplyrelationship of company and managerial personnel. Through the extraterritorialcomparison on the types of labor supply relations and the framework of application oflaw, the paper then summarizes that between civil&commercial law and labor law,there always exists a pattern which indicates that once the labor supply relation satisfyas labor relation, it falls in the jurisdiction of labor law, otherwise, it remains in thejurisdiction of civil and commercial law.For management personnel, the basis of theirlabor supply relation is the principal-agent relationship, and consequently based onthis special kind of relation, extraterritorial Company Law has not only developed twodifferent theories namely, the appointment relation theory and employment relationtheory, but also provided special rules on labor supply contract of managementpersonnel. This paper argues that regardless of the difference between both theories, itcan be concluded that as the subarea of commercial law, the regulation of companylaw on certain labor supply relationship indicates that labor law should withdraw fromthe same territory to avoid overlay regulation. In fact, because of management personnel’s special status, the relationship between them and the corporation does notforward exist, so that the nature of the relationship dissatisfies “powerful” vs.“weak”signature of labor relations.The management of company law sets up series ofmechanism as special restraint mechanism, appointment qualifications and dismissalpractices etc. in order to establish the checks and balances system in governance ofcorporate management. Therefore it is reasonable for company law to occupy thevacancy labor law leaves behind as well.Chapter Ⅳ to VI is the horizontal and longitudinal comparison of extraterritoriallabor legislations and judicial practices on differentiate application of labor law oncorporate managerial personnel. This paper argues that the demarcation patterns ofextraterritorial labor law on the issue of managerial personnel are mainly two types,which can be summarized as positive definition model and negative exclusion model.This chapter only discusses on the positive definition model. Positive definition modelis actually the general path of labor law to demarcate the covered employers andemployees with uncovered ones. Extraterritorial labor law follows this path to clarifythe defining criteria of employer and employee, and by applying this standard in casesconcerning the applicability on managerial personnel, extraterritorial labor law willgive protection to employees satisfied the criteria, and exclude those dissatisfied fromprotection of the law. Therefore, the core issue of positive definition model is toclarify the criteria of defining labor relations. This chapter first enumerates thedefinition of labor contract, employer and employee in extraterritorial labor law.Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the general criteria for defining laborrelationship and also the subject of the relationship is subordination test.Subordination test reveals the fundamental nature of labor relationship—the power ofemployer to control, which translated into a specific standard in practice, namely thepersonal subordination test in civil law system, or referring as control test in commonlaw system. Subsequently, the paper compares the personal subordination test appliedin Germany, Japan, Taiwan, United Kingdom, France and the United States, which fully indicates the importance of personal subordination test in defining laborrelationship. Since the flexibility of employment relations in labor market, thepersonal subordination test has developed into a comprehensive review test. Althoughthe new test could better serve the legislative purpose of labor law and affords moreprotection to employee, it also results in the decrease of correspondence in theemployer vs. employee scenario, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of personalsubordination test on reviewing the actual role of them. Finally, as a typical exampleof Positive definition model, this chapter analyzes Taiwan’s legislative and judicialopinion on defining managerial personnel by applying this model. The limitations ofpositive definition model served an important basis for the emergence anddevelopment of negative exclusion model.Chapter Ⅴ emphasizes on comparison study on negative exclusion model ofextraterritorial labor law. Because of the limitations on positive definition modelextraterritorial labor law not only defines labor relation through positive way, but alsodefines it a negative manner, to exclude certain subject that falls in the coverage oflabor law, nevertheless does not fit the profile of labor law. Negative exclusion modelis commonly adopted by extraterritorial labor in the exclusion of corporate managerialpersonnel. The study on negative exclusion model is both the key point and the maininnovation of this paper. This chapter focuses on two major aspects of negativeexclusion model applied in extraterritorial labor law. First of all, through thecomparison the legal norms and definition of managerial personnel used in theextraterritorial labor legislation, this paper points out that although the norm used indifferent regions and countries are generally highly differentiated, the relationshipbetween characteristics of level of management reflected and the degree of protectionis generally considered as important element in extraterritorial labor legislation. Thesenior management tends to be general excluded, and the exclusion on the middle andeven low-level management personnel are varied widely. Second, the papersummarizes the scope of exclusion of extraterritorial labor law. Commonly the exclusion applies to the working hours Act, collective labor law, law concerningprotection against dismissal, however the actual scope of exclusion is different amongcountries, some perform a more thorough way while others are relatively conservative.Finally, the paper analyzes another core issue over the exclusion criteria of negativeexclusion model in extraterritorial labor law. Horizontal comparison study of negativeexclusion model provides rich experiences for China, especially the commonpractices, and points out the better path we should adopt when developing theexclusion model.In response to the horizontal comparison of Chapter V, Chapter VI conducts avertical comparison based on the evolution and development of exclusion criteria ofcorporate managerial personnel in the United States labor law. Unlike the unifiedmodel of labor legislation in China, the U.S. labor legislation imposes a “separated”legislative model. The exclusion standards of managerial personnel in the U.S. aremainly provided in the following two important legislative materials, the NationalLabor Relations Act (NLRA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in both of which,the exclusion provisions are extremely important. NLRA regulates collective laborrelations, while FLSA provides for the labor standards in labor relations. NLRA andFLSA provide completely different exclusion paths on exclusion of managerialpersonnel, such as terms of the managerial personnel, exclusion criteria, practical testson defining the excluded personnel, etc. Due to completely different pathsaccomplished by the two acts on exclusion system, this chapter therefore describes theevolving of exclusion legal standards respectively. First, the NLRA’s managerialexclusion criteria are mostly reflected in the history of case law. Through study on thehistory of NLRA’s exclusion criteria, it fully shows how the statute and case lawevolved from the interaction of the spiral process of continuous improvement. Theexperiences on NLRA’s exclusion criteria suggest the importance of carefully designof exclusion criteria. Second, differing from NLRA, the FLSA’s exclusion criteria aremainly statutory regulations promulgated by Department of Labor, in the compilation of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)541. Accordingly, the paper focuses on thestatutory exclusion criteria of the FLSA. After reviewing of legislative background ofFLSA and the legislative path it chosen to demarcate the excluded groups, the paperemphasizes on the comparison of FLSA’s old regulation (before2004) and newregulation (after2004). The comparative study analyzes that problems arising inpractice when applying the old regulations, the improving suggestions broughtforward by different social groups, as well as measures the new regulations takes toimprove the existing problems. The study on evolution of the U.S. exclusion criteriafrom a historical view serves a very important reference for China to establish itsexclusion criteria.Chapter VII is based on the comprehensive analysis in the first six chapters andis the soul of the paper. Upon thoroughly comparison, the paper finally rationalizesthe differentiate application of China’s labor law on corporate managerial personneland makes some suggestions thereon. The paper points out that China should firstclear the general idea of the labor legislation. The currently legislative idea adoptedby the Labor Contract Law as to emphasizing on the opposite of labor andmanagement, has to be abandoned, and substituted with the new legislative idea ofemployee stratified. Only by adopting the idea of employee stratification, can wecorrect the improper application of China’s labor law. Under the new path, in order tomake the object of protection to meet the legislative goal of labor law and achievesubstantive justice thereof, China’s labor law has to redefines the protected subjectthrough narrowing down the upper level subject and expanding the lower levelemployees. The ideal of employee stratification has three dimensions theoretical basis,sociology, management science and Labor Law. By applying this idea, the papergenerally demarcates corporate managerial personnel in accordance with differentlevels of management. In principle, the paper suggests the differentiated applicationof China’s Labor Law based on the functional differentiation of the different levels ofmanagement, which indicates that senior management should exclude the protection of labor law, low-level management personnel should apply to the protection of laborlaw, while middle-level management personnel should only get partially protection ifthey meet certain requirement. On the basis of the principle positioning, this papercompares the positive definition model with the negative exclusion model, then pointsout that the drawbacks and limitations on adopting the Taiwan model. The positivedefinition model has already caused practicing difficulties in Taiwan’s judicialpractice, which indicates the application of positive definition model on positioningmanagerial personnel has less feasibility in China. The paper suggests China’s laborlaw to apply the positive definition model on defining ordinary employees, whileapply the negative exclusion model on defining corporate managerial personnel. Thepaper then gives several proposals on establishing the negative exclusion model inChina’s labor law. On the issue of exclusion scope, the article points out that ourcountry should choose to exclude the Labor Standards Law concerning wages andworking hours law, collective labor law, and law concerning protection againstdismissal. On the formulation of substantial exclusion criteria, the paper suggests tomainly apply compensation test, supplemented by duty test. Under this path, the paperthen finalized with several proposals on the establishment of compensation and dutytest.更多还原