International Society of Primerus Law Firms

Must-Knows for Businesses in Taiwan: Enforcement Rules of the Labor Incident Act

Formosan Brothers
Taipei, Taiwan

I. Introduction

The Labor Incident Act (hereinafter the “Act”) was implemented on January 1, 2020. As a specialized law of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure where labor incidents occupy a large part of civil litigations, the implementation of the Act certainly impacted many pending labor-related cases. As such, pursuant to Article 52 of the Act, the Civil Department of the Judicial Yuan lately implemented the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Incident Act (hereinafter the “Enforcement Rules”) in hope of clarifying how cases filed prior to the implementation of the Act will be handled. Businesses should be aware of such change.

II. Key features of the Enforcement Rules:

(I)        Article 2 of the Enforcement Rules
For labor incidents that were pending at a common court prior to the implementation of the Act

  1. Such cases shall be closed according to their status pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Act, and Paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Act is not applicable.

Remark: “In pursuit of a stabilized procedure and to protect the parties’ procedural interests, in principle, labor incidents that were filed prior to the implementation of the Act shall be closed by the court in accordance with the Act, and the pre-mediation under Paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Act is not applicable.”

  1. The jurisdiction of the case is determined by either the law at the time the case was admitted or Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Act. Any petition from worker to transfer of venue pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 7 of the Act shall be submitted prior to oral arguments of the case.

Remark: “The jurisdiction shall be determined according to the law at the time the case was admitted or Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Act.”

  1. The court fee shall be collected in accordance with the law at the time of prosecution, petition, appeal, or motion.

Remark: “With respect to the court fee deduction mechanism, matters prescribed in Paragraph 1 only apply to the prosecution, petition, appeal, and motion.”

  1. The Act is applicable to any matter prescribed in the aforesaid paragraph which is closed after the implementation of the Act and has been appealed or motioned. (Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rules)

Remark: “For matters prescribed in Paragraph 1, which is closed after the implementation of the Act and has been appealed or subject to a motion, is certainly applicable.”

(II)      Article 3 of the Enforcement Rules

For labor incidents that were filed at an intellectual property court prior to the implementation of the Act

  1. For labor incident cases that were filed at an intellectual property court prior to the implementation of the Act and is pending, after the implementation of the Act, such cases shall be closed according to its status pursuant to the procedure prescribed in Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Enforcement Rules.

Remark: “Intellectual property courts also have jurisdiction over labor incidents involving intellectual property matters. Due to the nature of the intellectual property court as a specialized court, for cases filed at an intellectual property court prior to the implementation of the Act and pending, such cases shall be closed according to the procedure provided in Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Enforcement Rules. This is the reason Paragraph 1 is provided.”

  1. Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Paragraph 1 of the preceding article apply mutatis mutandis to the preceding circumstance. Remark: “Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Paragraph 1 of the preceding article regarding the jurisdiction and court fee shall apply mutatis mutandis to the matters prescribed in Paragraph 1.”

 

(III)   Article 4 of the Enforcement Rules
For labor incidents that were motioned at an upper court prior to the implementation of the Act and is pending

  1. For labor incidents that were motioned at an upper court prior to the implementation of the Act and is pending, if such cases have been remanded or transferred after the implementation of the Act, such cases shall be handled by a labor specialty court or a specialty department (hereinafter “labor court”), except those remanded or transferred to an intellectual property court.
  2. Remark: “For labor incidents that were brought to an upper court by way of a motion prior to the implementation of the Act and was then admitted, such case, if being remanded or transferred after the implementation of the Act, shall be tried at the labor court pursuant to the provisions of the Act, except for those remanded or transferred to an intellectual property court, in light that no labor specialized court has been set up in the said court, for avoidance of disputes.”

(IV)  Article 5 of the Enforcement Rules
For labor incidents that have been petitioned for a mediation or deemed to be in a mediation, whose mediation procedure have not been closed prior to the implementation of the Act

  1. For labor incidents that have been petitioned for a mediation or deemed to be in a mediation whose mediation procedure have not been closed prior to the implementation of the Act, such cases shall still follow the mediation procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure after the implementation of the Act.

Remark: “For labor incidents that were in the process of applying for a mediation or were deemed in mediation whose mediation procedure have not been closed prior to the implementation of the Act, such cases shall still be handled in accordance with the mediation procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure after the implementation of the Act.”

  1. If the mediation of the preceding paragraph was unsuccessful and the case was filed for litigation pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 419 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such case shall be submitted to the labor court and handled appropriately according to its circumstances. Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Act does not apply to the cases that are deemed to have been prosecuted at the time the case petitioned for mediation pursuant to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same or have been deemed pending at a court since the date of the original complaint or payment order filing pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the same.

Remark: “Depending on the individual circumstances of the case, after a case is assigned to a labor court, the labor court shall handle it appropriately. If the court deems the case is ready for an oral argument, it shall order oral argument in accordance with the law. If the court deems the case is not ready, it shall not order oral argument but instead order preparation for oral argument. And if the mediation of the labor incident of the preceding paragraph is unsuccessful and such case is deemed to be under litigation pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, or if the case is already pending at a court prior to the implementation of the Act, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rules, such case does not need submitted for a labor mediation procedure, and hence Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Act regarding the necessity of labor mediation under the Act does not apply.

(V)     Article 6 of the Enforcement Rules
For labor incidents that were already filed at a court prior to the implementation of the Act and have been assigned to mediation pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure and the mediation procedure has not been completed.

  1. For labor incidents that were already filed at a court prior to the implementation of the Act and have been assigned to mediation pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure and the mediation procedure has not been completed, such cases shall be handled according to the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure; the same applies to those that were assigned to mediation after the implementation of the Act.
  2. Remark: “For labor incidents that were assigned to mediation pursuant to Article 420-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the implementation of the Act and the procedure has not been completed or those assigned to mediation after the implementation of the Act, the mediation procedure still proceed in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.”

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the introduction of the Enforcement Rules provides a general regulation for the handling of labor incidents pending at all instances and in all types of courts prior to the implementation of the Act, and should be able to resolve the possibility of conflicts in the application of the Act to a certain degree.

References:

Enforcement Rules of the Labor Incidents Act” announced by the Judicial Yuan http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/NNWSS002.asp?id=532512&flag=1&regi=1&key=&MuchInfo=&courtid= (last accessed: December 9, 2019)

 

Author: Jia-Wei Chao Esq.

fblaw@mail.fblaw.com.tw

Formosan Brothers Attorneys at Law

Taipei City, Taiwan


The general information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

Find a Primerus Lawyer

Business Law News Consumer Law News Defense Law News International Business Law News

Primerus News Archive

  Select Month: Go

Find a Lawyer


Primerus Law Firms (A-Z) Primerus Lawyers (A-Z) Primerus Law Firms by Practice Area Primerus Law Firms by Location Primerus Law Firms by Language Map of Primerus Law Firms