Relevant Legal Provisions

 

Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act	An employer may not terminate a labor contract without prior notice unless one of the following conditions applies: Business closure or transfer. Financial losses or downsizing of business. Work suspension for more than one month due to force majeure. Changes in business nature requiring a reduction in employees, and there are no suitable positions available for placement. The worker is indeed unable to perform their duties.
Article 12 of the Labor Standards Act	An employer may terminate the contract without prior notice if the worker falls under one of the following situations: Misrepresentation at the time of signing the labor contract, leading the employer to a mistaken belief causing potential harm. Committing acts of violence or severe insults against the employer, the employer's family, agents, or co-workers. Receiving a definitive sentence of imprisonment without probation or the option of a fine. Serious breaches of the labor contract or work rules. Intentional damage to machinery, tools, materials, products, or other property owned by the employer, or deliberate disclosure of the employer’s technical or business secrets, causing harm to the employer. Absence from work without valid reason for three consecutive days or six days within a month. For terminations under points 1, 2, and 4–6 above, the employer must act within 30 days of becoming aware of the situation.
Article 38, Paragraph 4 of the Labor Standards Act	If special leave days remain unused at the end of the year or upon termination of the contract, the employer must compensate the worker. If unused leave days are deferred to the next year through mutual agreement and remain unused, the employer must also provide compensation at the next year’s end or upon contract termination.

Facts and Reasons

The appellant (our client) worked at a certain company for several years but was terminated in 2020. The appellant is now claiming unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrepancies in labor and health insurance contributions, and compensation for unused special leave.

Judgment

 

1. Unpaid Wages:
   Since the respondent did not contest this claim, based on the labor contract agreement, the appellant is entitled to demand payment of the unpaid wages.

2. Unused Special Leave Compensation:
   According to the previous version of Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act regarding special leave, the intention is to ensure workers have opportunities for rest, recreation, and realizing their potential. Workers who have worked continuously for a certain period with the same employer or business unit automatically acquire the right to special leave.
   The court requested the respondent to provide relevant evidence but none was submitted. Therefore, under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act, the appellant is entitled to request compensation for unused special leave.

3. Overtime Pay:
   Normal working hours for workers should not exceed 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. If employers extend working hours, wages for the additional time are calculated as follows:
   For up to 2 hours of extended work: an additional one-third or more of the hourly wage.
   For further extended hours (up to 2 hours): an additional two-thirds or more of the hourly wage.
   The appellant claimed extended work hours during the employment period and provided overtime pay tables as evidence. After deducting break times and subsidies already provided by the company, the appellant is entitled to demand overtime pay from the respondent.

4. Labor and Employment Insurance Contributions:
   The respondent argued that the company had fewer than five employees and thus was not obligated to provide labor insurance under Article 6 of the Labor Insurance Act. However, businesses with fewer than five employees, while not required to insure employees, may voluntarily establish insurance units. If such a unit is established, all employees must be covered.
   The appellant's claim for labor and employment insurance contributions from the respondent is therefore justified.
    

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to theJudicial Yuan's judgment database)

Attorneys:Vincent Huang、Hsuan Su