Definition of continuous employment?


#1

A regular poster on the tealit forum (battle scarred) made the following comments regarding the OWP 51.01.03 :

" [You only have to prove five years of continuous employment and a legal place of residence]

…it’s misleading. Almost no foreigners actually qualify because you have to have the SAME employer for 5 years or have that employer approve any changes of employer."

Any comments on this?


#2

This information is incorrect. There is no specification that one has to have the same employer for the full five year period.

An in-depth discussion of 51.01.03 work permits was provided in the CHINA POST, Prime Time section, page 7, on Friday, April 26th. I am sure that if you drop by the offices of the CHINA POST, you will be able to buy a copy of that newspaper. I also suspect that you could order a copy by mail, probably by first making the appropriate postal remittance.

The telephone number of the CHINA POST is (02) 2596 9971.


#3

As mentioned before in a different thread I am a regular reader of the China Post and your articles.

Although I am sure some readers may appreciate your detailed instructions on purchasing back-copies of the China Post I fail to see the relevance to my question.

My question was if someone had a definition for the term ‘continuous employment’.

I did not find the answer in the “in-depth discussion of 51.01.03 work permits, provided in the CHINA POST, Prime Time section, page 7, on Friday, April 26th.”

I did find some vague notes regarding the option of providing tax-statements etc. (although you mentioned that they are not required), you also mentioned something about writing a letter stating why one feels they should qualify for the 51.01.03 work permit.

I ask this question again but this time I hope to hear from someone who has done their 5 years and has been through, or is currently in the process of applying for, the 51.01.03 work permit.

I feel this is an important issue for those of us who have long term plans for staying in Taiwan, but have no intention of marying a Taiwanese.

If there are some restrictions regarding ‘continuous employment’ then it may provide a reason for biting the bullet and staying with one employer for 5 years.


#4

Sorry for the confusion. The relevance to purchasing back copies of the China Post is that under my contract, the China Post owns the copyright on my articles. Hence, I can’t post my articles on the internet.

LACK OF DEFINITION: I am also troubled by the lack of a definition of continuous employment. I have talked to the CLA officials several times about this. They don’t have a definition.

Hence, it is similar to working with a court case. You make your own rationale, and then you try to persuade them to accept it. In this situation, you can make your own definition, then we can attempt to “sell” it to the CLA. Who knows, you might be doing the foreign community in Taiwan a great service by such an effort.

Based on this perception of the need to “provide your own definition”, my comments were that you have the option of providing tax-statements etc. (even though they are not required), you could also write a letter stating why you feel you should qualify for the 51.01.03 work permit, and offer other proof, etc.

Again, it would be similar to preparing a court brief, although without all the procedural details.

If you think you do qualify, then by all means prepare your paperwork. If necessary, I can accompany you to the CLA to pass it in directly to the officials involved, and discuss any problems on the spot.


#5

Richard,
A little different case: ARC with spouse for three years consequetively (ARC previously, but lived in US for two years and had to reapply upon return). Divorced. ARC with employer for 3 years.
Do I need to wait one more year to complete the 7, or 4 more?
The spousal ARC should count, right? I’m trying to decipher where I stand since it’s not exactly as cut and dried as other cases. Thanks.


#6

In terms of an ESA Article 51 work permit, I am unaware of any requirement needing “seven years.” Please clarify.