Taiwan weekly legal update: Clarifications of the Labor Standards Act draft reforms

Taiwan weekly legal update: Clarifications of the Labor Standards Act draft reforms

Clarifications of the Labor Standards Act draft reforms.

The Ministry of Labor is clarifying the recent disputes of “shifting period” set out in article 34 and “rest day” in article 36 arising from the new reform.

Clarification regarding the “shifting period” of article 34:

Article 34 is specifically adapted to the work of rotation system and the “rest period” is limited to the situation of rotation changing. For example, a worker was no the morning shift before and will change into afternoon shift for the next rotation, the “rest period” limitation is focused on the period between these two rotations.

The Ministry of Labor reaffirmed it is of principle that “rest period of at least eleven hours continually”. This new reform only provides a flexible alternative for the employers and employees to have this rest period to change into “no less than eight hours” through collective bargaining. But this alternative may only base on the reason of “the characteristic of the work” or “exceptional situations”. The Ministry will work on the interpretation of the above elements once the reform effected.

Clarification regarding the “regular leave” of article 36:

The Ministry clarified that the principle of “two-days off” remains unchanged. It is not the case that all industries could have “regular leave” adjusted. It is only in the case of exceptional situations which affirmed by the central authorities, then through the collective bargaining could the regular leave be adjusted.

The Ministry also promises that “double-layer” inspection will be deployed in the future.

The first layer, the Ministry will proactively designate the list of industries that could have the regular leave adjusted. The second layer, the industries who wish to have the regular leave adjusted, the Ministry will have a whole-scale inspection on their applications.


Draft amendments to air Pollution Control Act.

Draft amendments to the Air Pollution Control Act have several remarks. For example: pursuing the illegal income, incentives for reporting and the regime of “whistleblower”.

1. The Air Pollution Act empowers the central authority to set out regulations and operation permits for the stationary pollution sources adapted to the whole country. (art.24)
2. Separate the management of “use of fuel supplied” and “substances that are prone to cause air pollution”. The authority will issue the operating permits for each pollution sources respective to their characteristics. (art.28, 29)
3. The inspection of extension of operation permits should refer to the air pollution project and emission allowance for stationary pollution sources. (art.30)
4. Empowered the municipal authorities to map out the “preservation zone” and take measures for air-quality management. (art.40)
5. Establish the protection regime for “whistleblower” and “state witness”. (art.95)

But these reforms are disputed by the NGOs in Taiwan that the making of anti-pollution projects allows the EPA jointly with the Ministry of Economic, which is suspected to detract from the ultimate purpose.  https://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content2.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9491FC830&s=7A25FD1CE398B2FB

Amendments to EU Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidiary Regulation.

The European Commission had announced the latest Regulation 2017/2321, regarding the chapters of anti-dumping and anti-subsidiary reforms.

The Bureau of Trade described that the EC Regulation 2017/2321 states the latest investigation procedures regarding anti-dumping and anti-subsidiary. This is not a retrospective regulation and will deploy on the cases only after it taken into effect.

The major differences of the new investigation procedures are: the investigation will no longer distinguish between the economic status of “market” and “non-market”, but rely on the previous references. For example, the status of “distortion” of the market would be determined by whether the accused is significantly controlled by the national policy or existence of any interventions of State, discriminatory measures through-out the market. Once the “distortion” has been recognized, the DG TRADE would refer to markets not distorted by its state when determining the normal value of the goods. The European Commission will draft reports regarding the distortion of markets around the globe in a fixed term and give reference to the EU members.




Feel free to contact taipei@asiallians.com for more information.