Taiwan Jurisdiction: An Employment Overview
For multinational corporations operating in Taiwan Jurisdiction (“Taiwan”), the labour law regime presents a distinctive interplay between statutory codification and dynamic judicial interpretation. The employer–employee relationship is primarily governed by the Labor Standards Act (LSA), which serves as the minimum standard for labour conditions. However, compliance extends beyond the text of the statute; it requires a nuanced understanding of administrative rulings and evolving jurisprudence. Based on recent legislative amendments and recurring trends in litigation, this overview addresses the critical legal frameworks currently shaping human resource management in Taiwan.
The Presumption of Indefinite-Term Employment
A fundamental distinction in Taiwan’s labour jurisdiction is the statutory presumption regarding contract duration. Unlike jurisdictions where fixed-term arrangements are utilised freely for workforce management, Taiwan’s LSA establishes indefinite-term employment as the default standard. Consequently, fixed-term contracts are legally categorised as exceptions, permissible only under specific, statutorily enumerated circumstances.
The LSA delineates four categories of work for which fixed-term contracts may be lawfully concluded:
- temporary work – work of a non-continuous nature for a period not exceeding six months;
- short-term work – work of a brief, non-continuous duration expected to be completed within six months;
- seasonal work – work of a non-continuous nature influenced by raw material cycles or seasonal factors, with a duration not exceeding nine months; and
- specific project work – work relating to a specific project that is expected to be completed within a designated timeframe. For projects exceeding one year in duration, prior filing with and approval from the competent labour authority is required.
The burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that a fixed-term arrangement is justified by the objective, non-continuing nature of the work. If a dispute arises, courts look beyond the contract title to the factual reality of the employment relationship. If the work is deemed “continuing in nature”, the contract may be judicially reclassified as indefinite-term, regardless of the parties’ initial written intent.
Employee Transfer
While business restructuring and the reallocation of human resources are recognised as valid exercises of managerial prerogative, this discretion is not absolute. Taiwan’s legal framework imposes specific limitations on an employer’s authority to unilaterally transfer an employee.
When effecting a job transfer, the employer must not only act in accordance with the terms of the employment contract but also demonstrate business necessity and reasonableness. Such transfer may not result in any disadvantageous change to the employee’s working conditions, and the reassigned position must remain one that the employee is capable of performing. In addition, due consideration must be given to the employee’s personal circumstances and family life.
A violation of these principles empowers the employee to challenge the validity of the transfer or, alternatively, to terminate the employment contract pursuant to Article 14 of the LSA and claim statutory severance pay. Therefore, transfer decisions require a meticulous, case-by-case assessment of legality and reasonableness.
Working Hours and Leave
Taiwan’s labour law establishes a fundamental regulatory framework governing working hours, leave entitlements and overtime. Ordinarily, an employee’s working hours shall not exceed eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, with employees entitled to statutory annual leaves, regular leaves, rest days and national holidays. In recognition of industry-specific characteristics and the need for operational adaptability, the legal system allows for flexible working hour arrangements, including two-week, four-week and eight-week flexibility, as well as special arrangements under Article 84-1 of the LSA. Employers are obligated to maintain precise attendance records; non-compliance may result in administrative fines from the relevant authority. Thus, adherence to statutory working hours stipulations and accurate attendance documentation are critical components of labour law compliance.
Importantly, under the Regulations on Leave for Workers effective 1 January 2026, employees may take personal leave to care for family members on an hourly basis, without impact on attendance bonuses. Attendance bonus deductions related to ordinary sick leave must be calculated pro rata based on the actual leave taken, and if an employee’s ordinary sick leave does not exceed ten days within a given year, the employer is prohibited from adverse treatment based solely on this factor. Revised regulations further stipulate that employers cannot negatively influence an employee’s performance evaluation solely based on the quantity of leave taken.
Termination of Employment
Taiwan is not an “at-will” employment jurisdiction. An employer may only terminate an employment relationship if one of the grounds specified in Articles 11 or 12 of the LSA is met, and severance pay may be required in certain instances. In practice, judicial interpretations typically emphasise that termination should be a measure of last resort, prompting employers to implement less intrusive alternatives, such as performance improvement strategies or job transfers, before proceeding to termination.
Additionally, should an employer terminate a specified number of employees due to the grounds under Article 11 of the LSA, M&A or operational restructuring within a designated timeframe, compliance with the notification, consultation and employee placement processes under the Act for Worker Protection of Mass Redundancies is mandatory.
Workplace Conduct: Sexual Harassment and Bullying Prevention
In light of the MeToo movement in 2023, the regulatory landscape regarding workplace conduct has undergone significant expansion, resulting in a more robust compliance burden for employers. Taiwan initiated legislative amendments effective 8 March 2024, including updates to the Gender Equality in Employment Act, the Gender Equity Education Act and the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act. Notably, the Gender Equality in Employment Act includes comprehensive provisions concerning the prevention, investigation and response to instances of workplace sexual harassment.
Pursuant to the Gender Equality in Employment Act, employers are obligated to take immediate, effective and appropriate action upon becoming aware of a sexual harassment incident. Upon receiving a complaint, employers must conduct an investigation in compliance with legal requirements. The Act specifies detailed regulations concerning the composition and procedures of sexual harassment investigative committees and necessary remedial actions, including mandates for female members to constitute no less than half of the committee and the involvement of external professionals when the employee count exceeds a prescribed threshold.
Regarding workplace bullying, previous legal references included the Civil Code, the Labor Standards Act, and Article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, albeit the regulatory framework lacked clarity. Practically, employers often relied on the Ministry of Labor’s Guidelines for the Prevention of Unlawful Infringement in the Performance of Duties for investigations, although these guidelines are not legally binding. On 2 December 2025, amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act were enacted, introducing Chapter 2-1, which explicitly defines workplace bullying and mirrors the Gender Equality in Employment Act by requiring employers to take defined measures upon recognising bullying incidents. When the workforce reaches a statutory threshold, employers must form an investigative committee composed of no less than half external members. The responsible labour authorities are currently developing detailed implementation regulations, which warrant close monitoring for future updates.
對於在臺灣營運的跨國企業而言，勞動法制呈現出成文法規範與動態司法解釋相互交織的獨特樣貌。僱主與勞工之間的關係，主要是以勞動基準法規範勞動條件的最低標準。然而，實務上的法令遵循不限於法條文字本身，尚須掌握主管機關的行政解釋與不斷演進的司法實務。基於近年的立法修正與訴訟實務趨勢，本文概述當前臺灣人力資源管理上的主要法律議題。
勞動契約的期間
勞動契約，可區分為定期及不定期契約，而以不定期為原則，僅例外在工作的內容具有「臨時性」、「短期性」、「季節性」或「特定性」時，方可訂立定期勞動契約。因此勞動契約時僅在有上開法律允許的情形，才能約定於特定期間後即失效。
調職
企業之經營，就勞工所負責之工作內容，當然可能有調整其職務之需求。雇主調動勞工除應符合勞動契約約定，並應具備企業經營之必要性及合理性，並不得對勞工勞動條件有不利變更，且調整後之工作仍應為勞工所能勝任，並應兼顧其本人及其家庭生活之利益。因此實務上雖常見勞動契約中約定雇主得以調動勞工的工作內容或工作地點，但每一次的調動決定均需謹慎判斷合法性。
工時、休假
台灣對於就工時、休假及加班，均於法律設有基本規定。原則上，勞工每日正常工時不得逾8小時、每週不得逾40小時，並有法定特休、例假、休息日及國定假日等；同時，考量產業特性與經營彈性，法制亦設有二週、四週及八週變形工時，以及勞基法第84條之1責任制之特別安排。此外，雇主並應保留勞工出勤紀錄，否則可能為主管機關罰鍰。如何使勞工的工作時間符合法律規定並妥善紀錄勞工出勤狀況，是法令遵循上的一大重點。
值得注意的是，在2026年1月1日剛剛施行的勞工請假規則中，規定事假時可依小時計算且不得影響全勤獎金；普通傷病假之全勤獎金扣發亦應按請假日數比例計算，且一年內普通傷病假未超過十日者，雇主不得對其為不利處分。另外，新規定要求雇主不得僅因請假天數即影響勞工考績。
解雇
台灣法的一大特色，在於對於解僱勞工設有限制，僅在有勞動基準法第11條或第12條所列的事由，才能解雇，且在若干情況中必須支付資遣費。除了必須符合法律規定的事由，司法實務在多數情況中並要求解雇應為最後手段，而要求雇主必須執行績效改善措施或調職等手段，避免解雇的發生。
此外，如雇主因其經營調整而在一定期間解雇勞工達一定人數，尚須遵循大量解僱勞工保護法之通報、協商及安置程序，亦需注意。
職場性騷擾、霸凌調查
台灣在2024年歷經MeToo浪潮後，於2025年3月8日施行修正後的性別平等工作法、性別平等教育法及性騷擾防治法，其中性別平等工作法對於性騷擾的預防、調查與因應，設有詳細規定。
根據性別工作平等法，雇主在知悉有性騷擾情況應採取立即、有效、適當措施，如勞工提出申訴，公司應依法律規定進行調查。性別工作平等法對於性騷擾調查的組織、程序及後續處置設有詳細規定，除要求女性成員比例不得低於二分之一，並要求雇主在勞工人數達一定數量以上時，性騷擾調查需要外部專業人士參與。
另關於職場霸凌，過去法規依據包含民法、勞基法及職業安全衛生法第6條第2項第3款，但規範並不明確，實務上雇主多參考勞動部的「執行職務遭受不法侵害預防指引」進行調查，但是該指引並無拘束力。然而，台灣於2025年12月2日三讀通過職業安全衛生法修法，增訂第二章之一「職場霸凌之防治」，明定職場霸凌之定義，並如性工法般，要求雇主知悉勞工遭受職場霸凌時採取一定措施，並明確要求受雇者達一定人數，應組成調查小組，並要求外聘成員不得少於二分之一。勞動主管機關正在就新法制訂細部規定，後續發展須持續關注。
性騷擾及霸凌為近年來台灣勞動法上的重要議題，雇主如何平時即採行妥適措施以預防性騷擾及霸凌的發生，又如何在性騷擾及罷凌發生時依照法令規定完成調查並為相應處置，會是雇主必須謹慎處理的課題。
以上是關於台灣勞動法令的概要論述。有鑑於台灣法令在實際運作上的動態性，建議在遇有具體勞動問題時，應事前諮詢有辦理相關案件經驗的律師，以為妥善規劃。
對於在臺灣營運的跨國企業而言，勞動法制呈現出成文法規範與動態司法解釋相互交織的獨特樣貌。僱主與勞工之間的關係，主要是以勞動基準法規範勞動條件的最低標準。然而，實務上的法令遵循不限於法條文字本身，尚須掌握主管機關的行政解釋與不斷演進的司法實務。基於近年的立法修正與訴訟實務趨勢，本文概述當前臺灣人力資源管理上的主要法律議題。
勞動契約的期間
勞動契約，可區分為定期及不定期契約，而以不定期為原則，僅例外在工作的內容具有「臨時性」、「短期性」、「季節性」或「特定性」時，方可訂立定期勞動契約。因此勞動契約時僅在有上開法律允許的情形，才能約定於特定期間後即失效。
調職
企業之經營，就勞工所負責之工作內容，當然可能有調整其職務之需求。雇主調動勞工除應符合勞動契約約定，並應具備企業經營之必要性及合理性，並不得對勞工勞動條件有不利變更，且調整後之工作仍應為勞工所能勝任，並應兼顧其本人及其家庭生活之利益。因此實務上雖常見勞動契約中約定雇主得以調動勞工的工作內容或工作地點，但每一次的調動決定均需謹慎判斷合法性。
工時、休假
台灣對於就工時、休假及加班，均於法律設有基本規定。原則上，勞工每日正常工時不得逾八小時、每週不得逾40小時，並有法定特休、例假、休息日及國定假日等；同時，考量產業特性與經營彈性，法制亦設有二週、四週及八週變形工時，以及勞基法第84條之1責任制之特別安排。此外，雇主並應保留勞工出勤紀錄，否則可能為主管機關罰鍰。如何使勞工的工作時間符合法律規定並妥善紀錄勞工出勤狀況，是法令遵循上的一大重點。
值得注意的是，在2026年1月1日剛剛施行的勞工請假規則中，規定事假時可依小時計算且不得影響全勤獎金；普通傷病假之全勤獎金扣發亦應按請假日數比例計算，且一年內普通傷病假未超過十日者，雇主不得對其為不利處分。另外，新規定要求雇主不得僅因請假天數即影響勞工考績。
解雇
台灣法的一大特色，在於對於解僱勞工設有限制，僅在有勞動基準法第11條或第12條所列的事由，才能解雇，且在若干情況中必須支付資遣費。除了必須符合法律規定的事由，司法實務在多數情況中並要求解雇應為最後手段，而要求雇主必須執行績效改善措施或調職等手段，避免解雇的發生。
此外，如雇主因其經營調整而在一定期間解雇勞工達一定人數，尚須遵循大量解僱勞工保護法之通報、協商及安置程序，亦需注意。
職場性騷擾、霸凌調查
台灣在2024年歷經MeToo浪潮後，於2025年3月8日施行修正後的性別平等工作法、性別平等教育法及性騷擾防治法，其中性別平等工作法對於性騷擾的預防、調查與因應，設有詳細規定。
根據性別工作平等法，雇主在知悉有性騷擾情況應採取立即、有效、適當措施，如勞工提出申訴，公司應依法律規定進行調查。性別工作平等法對於性騷擾調查的組織、程序及後續處置設有詳細規定，除要求女性成員比例不得低於二分之一，並要求雇主在勞工人數達一定數量以上時，性騷擾調查需要外部專業人士參與。
另關於職場霸凌，過去法規依據包含民法、勞基法及職業安全衛生法第6條第2項第3款，但規範並不明確，實務上雇主多參考勞動部的「執行職務遭受不法侵害預防指引」進行調查，但是該指引並無拘束力。然而，台灣於2025年12月2日三讀通過職業安全衛生法修法，增訂第二章之一「職場霸凌之防治」，明定職場霸凌之定義，並如性工法般，要求雇主知悉勞工遭受職場霸凌時採取一定措施，並明確要求受雇者達一定人數，應組成調查小組，並要求外聘成員不得少於二分之一。勞動主管機關正在就新法制訂細部規定，後續發展須持續關注。
性騷擾及霸凌為近年來台灣勞動法上的重要議題，雇主如何平時即採行妥適措施以預防性騷擾及霸凌的發生，又如何在性騷擾及罷凌發生時依照法令規定完成調查並為相應處置，會是雇主必須謹慎處理的課題。
以上是關於台灣勞動法令的概要論述。有鑑於台灣法令在實際運作上的動態性，建議在遇有具體勞動問題時，應事前諮詢有辦理相關案件經驗的律師，以為妥善規劃。