團體壽險是員工福利思潮下之產物，至今已成為分散、轉嫁企業人身及責任風險不可或缺之風險管理工具。而團體壽險以一張保險單承保多數被保險人，此項「團體」之特性使其在核保、保險費、部分有效性及契約條款之設計上，有別於一般之人壽保險。目前，各家保險公司之團體壽險保險單悉以主管機關制訂之「團體一年定期人壽保險單示範條款」為依據。此示範條款以團體為要保人、團體成員為被保險人，將團體壽險定位為由第三人訂立之人壽保險契約，使團體壽險契約受到欠缺保險利益而無效、有無保險法第一○五條之適用及指定、變更受益人之權利人為誰之質疑。其次，團體壽險契約條款中的保險契約構成部分條款、被保險人資格條款、保險契約終止條款、契約轉換權條款、免責條款及不可抗爭條款等亦存在諸多問題，實有檢討予以修正之必要。 因此，本文乃以探討示範條款所涉法律爭議問題為中心，參酌國內學說見解並比較美國判例及美國保險監理官協會所制訂之「團體壽險定義及標準條款模範法案」，對團體壽險契約條款之增訂及修正提出七項建議，包括重新定位團體壽險契約當事人、重視逆選擇防範及被保險人權益保障、明訂兩年不可抗爭期間及團體信用壽險不適用契約轉換權條款及受益人條款、修正個別被保險人保險契約終止之時點及保險人免責事由等，希冀本文之淺見能使示範條款更為完善。 / Group life insurance arises from the thought that employers have the responsibilities to take care of their employees. Until now, group life insurance has become an important part of industries’ risk management plans for distributing and transferring industries’ life and liability risk. Group life insurance insures more than five persons in one policy, and this “group” characteristic makes group life insurance different from general life insurance in many aspects: underwriting, premiums, partly effective and contract clauses. Presently, provisions of group life policies are based on“Model Provisions for Group Yearly Term life Policies”promulgated by competent authority. According to Article 2 of the model provisions, the policyholder is the “group”, and the members of the group are insureds. In other words, group life insurance is entered into by third party. This causes three problems needed to be solved: (1) If the policyholder has no insurable interest in the insured, shall group life insurance be void? (2) Is Article 105 of Insurance Act applicable to group life insurance? (3) Who has the right to designate or change the beneficiary? In addition, there are still some problems in other model provisions including the entire-contract provision, eligibility requirements provision, termination provision, conversion provision, exception clause and incontestability provision. It is necessary to review and revise the model provisions. Therefore, this study focuses on related legal issues of the model provisions. Referring to scholars’ opinions and comparing American verdicts and “Group Life Insurance Definition and Group Life Insurance Standard Provisions Model Act” issued by The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, this study concludes by providing several suggestions in revising the model provisions: (1) The policyholder and the insured should be referred to as members of the group, not “group”. (2) Emphasize on preventing adverse-selection and protecting the insured’s right. (3) Augment incontestable period of two years and a clause which provides that conversion provision and beneficiary provision are not applicable to credit group life insurance. (4) Revise the termination provision and exception clause. Hope these suggestions will make the model provisions more perfect.

近年來有很多關於退休金計畫的研究主要在探討從確定給付計畫(defined benefit plan)轉向確定提撥計畫(defined contribution plan)趨勢的影響。而這些早期的研究(Clark and McDermed(1990 and 1993), Gustman and Steinmeier(1992), Ippolito(1985, 1986, 1993, and 1997), and Kruse (1995); Papke(1994, 1996)and Papke, Petersen and Poterba(1996)主要是利用計畫個數的改變或者是計畫參與者人數的增減來作為衡量此一趨勢影響力的指標。然而，這兩項指標從退休收入多寡的觀點來看，卻無法反應此一趨勢對於員工福利的影響程度。Wang andVanDerhei(2000)利用了「雇主退休金成本」的新概念，探討此一趨勢的影響。而本篇論文將要延續Wang and VanDerhei(2000)的研究，藉由衡量雇主慷慨程度的改變，進一步分析此一趨勢對於員工未來退休收入的影響程度。為了檢視雇主退休金慷慨度是否有隨著時間以及環境變化而有所不同，我們利用OLS迴歸模型來分析在兩段期問中（1985年與1996年）雇主退休金慷慨度的變化。結果發現在確定給付計畫及401(k)計畫之下，退休金計畫存在的時間愈長以及工會的支持對於雇主慷慨程度都有正面的影響。在財務變數方面，我們則是發現不論哪一種型態的退休金計畫，稅前收入金額的多寡對於雇主慷慨程度均具有正面的影響。此外，利用Chow Test，我們發現確定給付計畫在1985年和1996年的確具有結構上的改變，進一步分析之後，發現退休金計畫存在時間愈長、工會的支持、金融相關產業、固定資產佔總資產的比例以及稅前收入金額的多寡對於1996年確定給付計畫下之雇主退休金慷凱度的正向影響遠大其對於1985年的確定給付計畫。在員工退休福利上，我們則是發現401(k)計畫的雇主相對提撥率在過去20年有明顯地成長，這意味著401(k)計畫下的員工在過去20年裡的退休福利有明顯的增加。 關鍵字：退休金趨勢、雇主退休金慷慨度、確定給付計畫、確定提撥計畫、401(k)計畫 / Much debate has devoted in recent pension literature to discuss the impacts of current pension trend toward defined contribution(DC) plans, especially the substitution effect between 401(k) and other pension plans. However, the“generosity”of the employer pension plan deserves little attention. This paper analyzes the impacts of the effects of this trend on workers' future retirement income by measuring the changes of employers' pension generosity. We construct a panel data of firms that sponsor at least one pension plan in 1985 and compare the changes of their pension generosity for DB, DC and 401(k) plans between 1985 and 1996. OLS Regression Models are adopted to analyze the generosity of employers' primary plan and supplemental plan and Chow test is conducted to test the structural changes between 1985 and 1996. Our results find that plan age and union status have positive impacts on employers' generosity ofDB and 401(k) plans. For financial variables, pretax income is an important consideration to employers' generosity disregarding the type of plan. In addition, we find that there was a structure change ofDB plans between 1985 and 1996 and that union status,plan age, financial etc. industry, proportion of fixed assets and pretax income have greater positive impacts on employers' generosity ofDB plans in 1996 than in 1985. For employees' retirement income, the matching rates have grown over the last two decades and this stands for that employees covered by 401(k) plans have received better retirement benefit over the last two decades. Key words: Pension trends; Employers' generosity; Defined benefit plan; Defined contribution plan; 401(k) plan

關係企業的經營型態已在我國占有日漸重要的地位，近年來我國公司在外國或大陸地區設立公司之情形亦時有所聞，此二者皆因此連帶引發了勞動法上的問題，究竟雇主可否使勞工在關係企業中不同公司間調職？甚至調職到我國境外之關係企業其他公司？此與傳統上企業內調職的不同點在於，此時勞工於各公司間的調職涉及勞工於不同法人格間的變動，雇主是否當然有此權利，即不無深究之餘地。 基此，本文將從以下幾個面向來探討關係企業內調職之問題：1.在何等情況下構成關係企業？此由於勞動法上並無相關法制之訂定，故需從其他領域實定法著手，又設若從其他領域實定法著手，是否可全盤移植於勞動法亦屬討論範圍；2.關係企業範圍界定後，是否會對於勞動法上的雇主概念造成影響，進一步而言，是影響到勞動契約上雇主概念，抑或是影響到功能性雇主概念，或者，在何種情況下該二者始會受到影響？3.關係企業內調職的概念為何？其與雇主指示權的關係，與企業內調職、派遣、出差等概念究竟有何異同？4.雇主得否事前取得使勞工於關係企業內調職之權利，若是，是在何種情形下雇主始能取得？5.勞動法之終止保護是否能夠擴及於關係企業，若是，是在何種情況下擴及？6.勞工於關係企業內調職後重要勞動條件應該如何因應之問題。 本論文希冀能夠將上述問題一一釐清，而讓勞資雙方能夠清楚了解雙方之權利義務分別為何，防範爭議於未然，共創與共享經濟之價值。