2024 AmCham DEIA Celebration Spring Happy Hour – Celebrating Life & Diversity
2024 AmCham DEIA Celebration Spring Happy Hour – Celebrating Life & Diversity
AmCham Happy Hour
In last year’s White Paper, the HR committee proposed the adoption of laws/regulations to govern the notice period prior to a labor strike for specific industries, render supplemental rulings for issues related to dispatched employees, and adjust the reward and punishment for hiring people with disabilities. Regarding the labor-strike notice period, the Ministry of Labor (MOL) has started procedures to introduce legislation. The issues concerning dispatched labor and recruitment of disabled employees were also resolved in the course of meetings with the authorities. We deeply appreciate the government’s willingness to accept the White Paper recommendations.
As new issues have arisen in the labor/management relationship, we offer the following proposals 2020:
Suggestion 1: Clarify what types of high-salary personnel are eligible for more flexible working conditions.
On May 23, 2019, MOL issued a ruling that employers may apply for release from restrictions on working hours, regular leave, rest days, and night and holiday work by female employees in the case of supervisory or administrative personnel with monthly salaries of NT$150,000.
According to Article 50-1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Standards Act (LSA), “supervisory or administrative personnel” refers to those responsible for the operation and management of the business and possessing the decision-making authority over employee recruitment and termination or working conditions. In general, only a few mandated managers in a company, such as the chairman, general manager, chief HR officer, and other designated positions, might fall under the strict definition stated in the Enforcement Rules. But in these cases, there is no need for a company to apply for release from the work restrictions if no employment relationship exists.
To our knowledge, no company or institution has yet successfully obtained approval for such release from the Taipei City Department of Labor. It is quite likely that the requirement concerning “supervisory or administrative personnel” could be an important factor in the failure to obtain such approval. We therefore suggest MOL consider relaxing the requirements stated in the ruling or changing the definition in the Enforcement Rules so as to provide employers with more flexibility to adjust the working conditions for higher-salary employees.
Suggestion 2: Consider the factors in the MOL checklist in their totality when determining whether an employment or independent contractor relationship exists.
Various types of agreements exist under Taiwan law for the provision of labor service, including employment agreements, contracts for work, and mandate agreements, and the obligation of the parties varies for each type of agreement. To clarify the definition of an employment relationship, on November 19, 2019, MOL announced the “Directions for Classifying an Employment Agreement” and a checklist that includes four major items and 25 minor ones as criteria for determining the type of employment relationship.
We urge MOL, when reviewing the checklist factors, to consider controlling court precedent, primarily the Constitutional Court’s Interpretation No. 740 which held that the degree of the employee’s subordination should be taken into account – and that partial subordination is insufficient to establish an employment relationship. In addition, the authorities should recognize that certain criteria in the checklist are not dispositive of an employment relationship and may exist in a mandate or contractor relationship. These factors should be relegated to secondary consideration when reviewing an employment relationship, while the core characteristics are given more weight in the analysis.
Regarding several of the checklist items, the Committee offers the following comments:
Regarding Item I 5.1 (the service provider is obligated to accept the business entity’s review of his/her work performance), I 7.1 (the service provider has to perform the work personally), and III 1.2 (the service provider is unable to complete job assignments alone and needs to collaborate with other colleagues to complete the work), these three items exist concurrently in employment, contractor, and mandate relationships and are not necessarily indicators of an employment relationship.
For Item I 5.1, the performance of an independent contractor or agent also needs to be reviewed by the proprietor or principal so that the proprietor or principal can decide whether the work has been satisfactorily completed and should be paid for in full. For Item I 7.1, it is also common for the proprietor or principal to require the contractor or agent to personally perform the work entrusted to them. For Item III 1.2, it is also common for a proprietor to retain multiple contractors to work on a single project (such as a construction project) by assigning discrete parts to each.
In sum, these three items are not useful indicators for defining employment relationships.
Suggestion 3: Revise the requirement for large-sized enterprises to hire nurses in order to make the most effective use of nursing personnel in Taiwan.
Article 22 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act stipulates that “Business entities employing 50 or more laborers shall employ or contract medical personnel” and that medical personnel responsible for providing labor health services shall be subject to Article 3 of the Labor Health Protection Regulations. The requirement to hire or contract medical personnel applies to organizations with more than 300 employees, those having more than 100 employees and engaged in hazardous work, and those with a total number of more than 3,000 employees in various locations. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that workers enjoy the right to a safe and healthy working environment.
However, the labor environment has changed, and workers do not necessarily provide their services in fixed workplaces. Employing medical personnel in the office may not be the best way to provide workers with adequate health protection. In addition, due to the current shortage of medical personnel in Taiwan, the requirement for employers of a certain size to hire medical personnel may result in inadequate manpower allocation. It is appropriate to consider how to properly balance labor protection and the deployment of medical resources across the country.
The Committee urges revision of Article 3 of the Labor Health Protection Regulations along the following lines:
Suggestion 4: Recognize the value of independent and flexible work arrangements under the digital economy and refrain from applying rigid labor classification or regulations to app-based work.
The Committee acknowledges the government’s efforts to upgrade Taiwan’s industry by identifying “innovation” as one of the key themes for overall national development. Taiwan is well-positioned to embrace a digitized platform economy, a concept that has been growing rapidly around the globe. As this emerging economy introduces innovative and sometimes disruptive business models, the Committee urges the government to acknowledge that the definition of “work” and “employment” in a digital world needs to be subject to re-evaluation.
While standard full-time employment still dominates the labor market, it should not constitute an absolute benchmarking norm against other alternatives. Rather than viewing independent, app-based and knowledge-based work as a problem and pushing workers into more traditional forms of employment, the government should pursue reforms that democratize access to genuinely flexible forms of work with low entry barriers. Such reforms would help many people for whom traditional employment is ill-suited or simply not possible. They would also help Taiwan ride the global wave of development of a platform economy and create new opportunities for future generations.
Traditionally, the labor law only fully regulates employment relationships. It is difficult to provide adequate rights to “non-employee” categories of workers. In order to encourage the provision of basic rights to these workers, the regulations should first allow these non-traditional but consensual work arrangements to flourish. Fair conditions and protection for app-based workers should be put into place – in consultation with such stakeholders as workers, app and platform providers, academia, industry associations, and other experts – prior to creating regulations intended to address the unique needs of a digital labor market.
In the interest of making Taiwan a center of innovation in the region, the Committee requests that government allow independent workers a considerable level of flexibility in the type of contract of their choosing. Businesses operating digital platforms often find themselves in a dilemma when implementing rules that aim at enhancing the safety and protection of consumers and independent app-based workers, since the authorities sometimes construe the attempts by businesses to extend benefits and protection as evidence of the control and subordination typical of an employment relationship. The Committee therefore urges the government to codify “safe harbors” for businesses to develop their own policies to protect the well-being of independent workers and ensure consumer rights.
在去年的白皮書中,人力資源委員會提出了增訂特定產業勞工罷工預告期規定、派遣相關補充函釋及調整企業僱用身心障礙者的獎懲等議題。就罷工預告期,勞動部已研擬修法,就派遣及僱用身心障礙者之議題已於主管機關會議中解決。本委員會誠摯感謝主管機關採納白皮書之意見。
因於勞資關係中已衍生出許多新議題,本委員會提出下列2020年建議供參:
建議一:釐清何種類型之高薪人員得適用較彈性之勞動條件
勞動部於2019年5月23日發布函令,規定雇主得為每月工資達新台幣十五萬元以上之監督、管理人員,申請工作時間、例假、休息日、女性夜間工作假日工作之豁免(下稱「豁免」)。
按《勞動基準法施行細則》(下稱「施行細則」)第50-1條,「監督、管理人員」係指負責事業之經營及管理工作,並對一般勞工之受僱、解僱或勞動條件具有決定權力之人員。通常情形,公司僅有董事長、總經理、人資主管或其他指定職位等少數委任經理人能符合施行細則中之嚴格定義。然在此種情況下,如非屬僱傭關係,公司本毋須為該等人員申請豁免。
據悉,迄今並無公司或事業依該函令成功取得台北市政府勞動局之豁免核准。上開有關「監督、管理人員」之要件恐為申請人無法取得該核准之重要因素。爲此,本委員會建請勞動部考慮放寬此函令之要件或修正施行細則中之定義,使雇主得在薪資較高員工之勞動條件調整上取得更多彈性。
建議二:在決定是否存在勞動關係或獨立自營作業者關係時,綜合考量勞動契約從屬性判斷檢核表中之因素
依照台灣法律,以提供勞務為目的之契約種類甚多,諸如勞動契約、承攬契約、委任契約等,當事人在各契約類形下之給付義務均有所不同。勞動部為明確化勞動契約之認定,於2019年11月19日公布勞動契約認定指導原則及勞動契約從屬性判斷檢核表(下稱「檢核表」),包含4個大項、25個小項之判斷標準,以認定勞動契約之類型。
本委員會建請勞動部在審查檢核表之因素時,應參酌法院見解,尤其是憲法法庭作出之大法官釋字第740號解釋,該解釋認為應考慮員工之從屬性程度,而部分從屬性不足以成立勞動關係。此外,主管機關應體認到,檢核表中之某些標準並非勞動關係之決定性因素,亦得存在於委任關係或承攬關係中。在審查勞動關係時,應將這些因素放到次要考慮位置,而應在分析時給予核心特徵更多的權重。
本委員會對檢核表項目提供建議如後:
有關檢核表第一點第5.1項(勞務提供者的工作表現有接受事業單位之考核的義務)、第7.1項(事業單位要求勞務提供者親自從事工作)及第三點第2.1項(勞務提供者無法獨力完成工作,需與其他同事分工共同完成工作),這三個項目同時存在於勞動契約、承攬及委任關係中,且非勞動關係之必要指標。
就第一點第5.1項而言,承攬人或代理人之表現亦需由業主或委託人為審查,使業主或委託人可以決定他們是否適當地完成工作並應支付其全額費用。而對於第一點第7.1項,業主或委託人一般亦會要求承攬人或代理人親自執行他們委託的工作。至於第三點第1.2項,亦常見業主聘請多個承攬人,分配各自部分以完成單一項目(例如:一個建築計劃)。足徵上開三個項目非屬定義勞動關係之有用指標。
建議三:因醫護人力短缺,為避免人力資源浪費,宜放寬或修正事業單位達一定規模應聘從事勞工健康服務護理人員之規定
依《現行職業安全衛生法》第22條規定及《勞工健康保護規則》第3條(附表三),勞工人數在300人以上或從事特別危害健康作業勞工人數在100人以上者,或事業分散各地區勞工總人數達3,000人以上之總機構,須僱用護理人員。此立法,係為確保勞工享有安全衛生之工作環境權利,並履行勞工健康保護規則第10至12條所列雇主義務。
然而目前勞動環境改變,勞工不一定都在固定的工作場所提供勞務,僱用護理人員在辦公處所未必是提供勞工適當、妥善健康保護的最佳方式。此外,現行醫護人員短缺,強制要求符合一定規模之雇主僱用護理人員,恐造成人力配置不當造,宜思考如何兼顧勞工保護及我國醫療資源之平衡。
本委員會建議如後:
修正《勞工健康保護規則》第3條,事業單位應聘專職護理人員之事業單位規模認定。
本委員會謹先就部分判斷標準提供意見:
建議四:正視數位經濟下獨立與彈性工作的價值,避免將僵化的勞動定義或法規套用在由行動App衍生的工作型態,廣納各方利害關係人的意見,並且在法規中明「安全港」以增進安全與福祉
本委員會了解政府在推動台灣產業升級與轉型的努力,例如將「創新」訂為整體國家發展的重要主題之一。數位平台經濟在全球發展方興未艾,台灣有絕佳的條件全面擁抱此趨勢。伴隨此新興經濟模式而來的,除了創新外,還有顛覆傳統的商業模式。因此,本委員會呼籲政府應該正視此議題,重新審視「工作」與「僱傭關係」在數位世界的定義。
即使標準的全職工作目前仍是勞動市場主力,但不應被奉為多元工作種類中唯一且絕對的圭臬。與其將獨立、App型或是知識型的工作視為問題,並將其從業人員以傳統僱傭型態框住,政府應該要追求的是能夠將高彈性、低進入門檻的工作型態普及化的政策改革。此類革新不僅將幫助無法受惠於傳統僱傭工作模式的廣大勞工,更能夠推進台灣站上平台經濟發展的浪尖,為未來世代創造更多機會。
傳統上,勞動法規僅規範僱傭關係,使得企業提供「非員工」勞動者之保障相形困難。首先,法規應該要允許「合意但非典型」的工作型態蓬勃發展,以鼓勵給予此類型勞動者基本權益。在為數位勞動市場的特殊需求制定法規之前,應徵詢多方利害關係人,如:勞動者、平台或App服務提供者、學者、產業協會與其他專家,以確保App型工作的勞動者能享有公平的勞動條件與保障。
為使台灣成為區域創新中心,本委員會呼籲政府應該允許獨立工作者享有高度彈性,並尊重其締結合約的自由。營運數位平台的業者,在執行促進消費者與獨立使用App工作者的安全與保障之相關規定時,往往陷入兩難。因為監管單位時常將此延伸福利與保障的措施,視為僱傭關係中常見的從屬性認定事證。本委員會要求,政府應該明定「安全港」,讓企業能在訂定保障獨立工作者與消費者福祉與權益政策時,不因此被視為雇主。