September 2019
The court order that the employer failed to substantiate that the employee had delayed his work and affected the economic purposes for hiring the employee, this had nothing to do with whether the employee was competent for his work and the grounds for discharge under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Law. (Taiwan)
Elva Chuang
In this matter, the Appellee (i.e., the worker) asserted as follows. He was employed by the Appellant (the employer) as a transport affair specialist in 2008. The Appellant issued three written warnings to him for his violation of work rules on December 3, 2013, August 21, 2014 and December 1, 2014 and subsequently notified him of the termination of his employment contract via a postal demand letter on December 2, 2014 in accordance with Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Law. Since he believed that this was an illegal discharge, he filed a complaint to confirm the existence of the employment relationship and to be reinstated. The original decision and the second instance decision both held that the Appellee's assertion of illegal discharge was valid. Therefore, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
According to the 107-Tai-Shang-2461 Civil Decision of May 31, 2019 as rendered by the Supreme Court (hereinafter, the "Decision"), the original trial court held that whether the Appellee, who had been employed by the Appellant to work on transport affairs, was competent for his work depends on whether the service he provided could achieve the objectives of the courier or cargo delivery services assigned by the Appellant. In addition, the rest time information entered by the Appellee in his time card was not consistent with the actual rest time on November 12, 13 and 14 of 2014, and the Appellee had received three written warnings from the Appellant in one year. However, since the Appellant failed to substantiate that the Appellee had delayed his work and affected the economic purposes for hiring the Appellee, this had nothing to do with whether the Appellee was competent for his work and the grounds for discharge under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Law did not exist. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
It was additionally held in this Decision that this case should involve a breach of the labor contract or work rules in material aspects under Article 12, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Law. However, if an employer seeks to terminate an employee for reasons under Article 12, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Law, the labor contract shall be terminated in 30 days upon knowledge of the termination reasons.
In this matter, the Appellee (i.e., the worker) asserted as follows. He was employed by the Appellant (the employer) as a transport affair specialist in 2008. The Appellant issued three written warnings to him for his violation of work rules on December 3, 2013, August 21, 2014 and December 1, 2014 and subsequently notified him of the termination of his employment contract via a postal demand letter on December 2, 2014 in accordance with Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Law. Since he believed that this was an illegal discharge, he filed a complaint to confirm the existence of the employment relationship and to be reinstated. The original decision and the second instance decision both held that the Appellee's assertion of illegal discharge was valid. Therefore, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
According to the 107-Tai-Shang-2461 Civil Decision of May 31, 2019 as rendered by the Supreme Court (hereinafter, the "Decision"), the original trial court held that whether the Appellee, who had been employed by the Appellant to work on transport affairs, was competent for his work depends on whether the service he provided could achieve the objectives of the courier or cargo delivery services assigned by the Appellant. In addition, the rest time information entered by the Appellee in his time card was not consistent with the actual rest time on November 12, 13 and 14 of 2014, and the Appellee had received three written warnings from the Appellant in one year. However, since the Appellant failed to substantiate that the Appellee had delayed his work and affected the economic purposes for hiring the Appellee, this had nothing to do with whether the Appellee was competent for his work and the grounds for discharge under Article 11, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Law did not exist. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
It was additionally held in this Decision that this case should involve a breach of the labor contract or work rules in material aspects under Article 12, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Law. However, if an employer seeks to terminate an employee for reasons under Article 12, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Law, the labor contract shall be terminated in 30 days upon knowledge of the termination reasons.
