Abacus wrote: yyy wrote:
Technical answer: If the LSA applies, and the employee's termination of the contract is in conformity with Art. 14 (i.e. the employee serves appropriate notice to the employer that the termination is occurring due to the existence of one of the situations listed in Art. 14 Par. 1, and the situation truly does exist, Subpar. 1 and 6 being subject to the proviso of Par. 2 and Subpar. 2 and 4 being subject to the proviso of Par. 3), then Par. 4 makes Art. 17 applicable mutatis mutandis, which means the employer must pay severance pay (and if the employee is Taiwanese or married to a Taiwanese, the Labor Pension Act's "new system" may apply instead, which is basically 50% of the LSA severance pay).
Easy answer: If your boss screws you, you can quit and get severance pay, though not all types of screwing are equally valid.
I am glad that we are in agreement that a minor labor law infraction can't immediately terminate a contract.
I didn't say that. For the employer to use Art. 12 on the basis of a violation, it needs to be a major violation ("違反勞動契約或工作規則，情節重大
者"). For the employee to use Art. 14 on the basis of a violation, there's no "major" proviso. All that's needed is a situation in which "雇主違反勞動契約或勞工法令，致有損害勞工權益之虞者" lit. "the employer violates the labor contract or labor laws/regulations, resulting in fear of harm to the worker's rights and interests". I have dealt with this in real life, and the labor department upheld the employee's use of Art. 14 on the basis of proof that the employer violated the LSA, though there was no need to ask the department to confirm the violations in advance.
With Subpar. 6, there is no need for the employee to give the employer a chance to rectify the situation (unlike Subpar. 3, health & safety issues), though there is a 30 day time limit from the day the employee becomes aware of the situation.
If the employer underpays the employee (Subpar. 5), there is no time limit. (It stands to reason that underpayment ceases to be a valid reason once the debt is cleared.)
I don't know of any case in which a court deemed a violation too small to make Art. 14 applicable. If you know of such a case, please share.