Things Taiwan Workers Need to Know for Obtaining an “Involuntary Separation Certificate”

April 2023

Jiselle Ong and Teresa Huang

Employers sometimes refuse to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” to workers who have been dismissed or separated involuntarily for other reasons, making the said workers unable to apply for unemployment benefits in accordance with the Employment Insurance Act (“EIA“). In such cases, can workers request their employer to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” under Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act (“LSA“) to apply for such unemployment benefits? Is the “Service Certificate” mentioned in this article of the LSA the same as the “Involuntary Separation Certificate”? In addition, if the workers have only worked for a limited period, or have a labor dispute with the employer, will it affect their applications for an Involuntary Separation Certificate or unemployment benefits? All of these remain in dispute. This article hereby summarizes the relevant legal provisions and practical opinions in Taiwan below for reference of both employers and workers.

1. Is the “Service Certificate” under the LSA the same as the “Involuntary Separation Certificate” under the EIA? Can workers request their employer to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” under Article 19 of the LSA to apply for unemployment benefits?

Pursuant to Article 19 and Article 79 of the LSA, when an employment agreement terminates, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, workers may request their employer to issue a “Service Certificate.” If the employer fails to do so, they may be fined and the company name and the name of the person in charge may be publicly announced by the competent authority. Furthermore, under Article 11, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, and Article 25 of the EIA, when a worker is separated involuntarily and meets specific cumulative employment insurance coverage, and, despite their ability and willingness to work, has failed to be referred for employment or arranged for vocational training within 14 days after registering for job placement, they may submit an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” with other required documents to apply for unemployment benefits from the Bureau of Labor Insurance of the Ministry of Labor.

The current EIA does not require employers to provide Involuntary Separation Certificates, and there are no corresponding penalties if employers refuse to do so. In this case, can workers request their employer to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” under Article 19 of the LSA instead? In other words, does the “Service Certificate” mentioned in the LSA cover the “Involuntary Separation Certificate”? This is a matter of dispute.

Although the Council of Labor Affairs of the Executive Yuan (“CLA”, later reorganized as the Ministry of Labor) has previously stated that[1] the proof of employment separation mentioned in the EIA is under a provision of a different law from the Service Certificate mentioned in Article 19 of the LSA, based on the content of another interpretation circular released around the same time[2], the CLA also believes that if a worker has the fact of involuntary separation and the employer refuses to issue a certificate, the worker may file a complaint with the labor authority or inspection agency in the location of the business and request assistance in accordance with Article 19 of the LSA. In addition, according to the Supreme Court and the High Courts[3], if a worker is involuntarily separated, they may request their employer to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” under Article 19 of the LSA (as well as Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the EIA).

Therefore, while “Service Certificate” and “Involuntary Separation Certificate” are documents under different laws, the courts’ opinions suggest that there is a certain connection between the two certificates, and workers may request their employers to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” according to Article 19 of the LSA in order to apply for unemployment benefits. If the employer refuses to issue the certificate, they may be subject to complaints or reports and may face penalties from the competent authority.

2. If a worker has only worked for a limited period or has a labor dispute with their employer, will that affect their eligibility to request an Involuntary Separation Certificate or to apply for unemployment benefits?

According to the LSA, there is no minimum seniority required to obtain a “Service Certificate,” and the EIA also only requires that workers shall have at least one year of cumulative employment insurance coverage within the past three years before the separation, regardless of whether they worked for the same employer during the period, to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Thus, even if a worker has only worked for a short period of time, they may still request their employer to issue an “Involuntary Separation Certificate,” and if the cumulative employment insurance coverage has reached the threshold, they are also eligible to apply for unemployment benefits.

Besides, if there is a labor dispute between the worker and the employer regarding the separation reason, the worker may still apply for unemployment benefits under Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the EIA. And according to Article 25, Paragraph 3 of the EIA and the interpretation circular of the CLA[4], if it is difficult to obtain the proof of employment separation, such as in cases where there is a labor dispute and mediation has taken place, the employer has filed a layoff notification with the competent authority, the employer has ceased operations, or the employer is missing, the worker may obtain consent from a public employment agency and submit a written statement of the reasons for not providing the document instead. Hence, if there is a labor dispute between the worker and the employer regarding the separation reason and mediation has been initiated, the worker’s eligibility for unemployment benefits shall not be affected, and the worker may submit a certified copy of the mediation accepted to the competent authority to apply for unemployment benefits. However, if it is determined after mediation that the worker does not meet the eligibility requirements, they must return the unemployment benefits received.

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the scope of the “Service Certificate” should cover the “Involuntary Separation Certificate.” Regardless of the length of employment, if a worker has been involuntarily separated, they may request an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” from their employer in accordance with Article 19 of the LSA. If they meet the threshold of cumulative employment insurance coverage and other legal requirements, they may also apply for unemployment benefits from the competent authority. In addition, if there is a labor dispute between the employer and worker over the reason of separation, making it difficult to obtain the proof of employment separation, the worker may not only file a complaint or report against the employer for failing to provide an “Involuntary Separation Certificate” in accordance with the law but also apply for unemployment benefits by providing proof of mediation accepted by the competent authority in accordance with Article 25, Paragraph 3 of the EIA.


[1] Lao-Zi-2-Zi Circular No. 0960079273 released by the CLA on October 31, 2007
[2] Lao-Zhi-Ye-Zi Circular No. 0960078482 released by the CLA on October 17, 2007
[3] The Civil Decision of the Supreme Court (111) Tai-Shang-Zi No. 484, the Civil Decision of the Supreme Court (111) Tai-Shang-Zi No. 299, the Civil Judgement of the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch (111) Lao-Shang-Zi No. 15, the Civil Judgement of the Taiwan High Court (110) Lao-Shang-Zi No. 97
[4] Lao-Bao-Yi-Zi Circular No. 0920003857 released by the CLA on January 21, 2003


The contents of all materials (Content) available on the website belong to and remain with Lee, Tsai & Partners.  All rights are reserved by Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Lee, Tsai & Partners. 

The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case.  The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments.  Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors’ opinions do not represent the position of Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lee, Tsai & Partners.