Quitting a job before the one-year contract ends-How much notice to give? Legal problems?

Legal Legal - Work
1

I’m thinking of quitting my office job. I have an open work permit, so there’s no issues with my residency status. I’m on a one year contract. If I remember, the terms for terminating the contract read something like the employer can terminate at any time for any reason. The only reasons listed that an employee may quit are health and a other rare situations. There’s no clause for quitting because I don’t want to work there anymore, no fines or anything related to quitting other than those emergencies. There are no critical issues, and I haven’t told anyone I want to quit, but I just want to move on.

According to the Labor Standards Act:
https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=N0030001

Article 14 covers quitting without notice, none of which apply to me. I’m willing to give notice.

What is confusing me is Article 15, which states that an employee on a fixed 3-year contract can quit with 30 days notice after having worked for 3 years. It seems like that person is stuck if they don’t like the job, but that doesn’t apply to me.
A person on a non-fixed contract can quit with notice, 10, 20, or 30 days depending on how long they’ve worked.

I’m on a 1 year contract. Not three years, and not fixed. What do I do? Surely they can’t make me, or even wouldn’t want me, to stay in a job I don’t want. But can they sue me for damages?

I think Article 9 might have an answer: “Labor contracts may be divided into two categories: fixed term contracts and non-fixed term contracts.”
That seems to say that there are only two types of contract. It goes on to say: “A contract in nature for temporary, short-term, seasonal or specific work may be made as a fixed term contract, but a contract for continuous work, should be a non-fixed term contract.”
My job is not temporary, short-term, or seasonal. I don’t think it would count as short-term, definitely not seasonal. It couldn’t be temporary because I’ve been there more than one year and it’s a fixed position in the company. I don’t know what specific work means here because every job is somehow specific. I’m guessing it means for a specific task but it’s not clear.
Does that mean that, though my contract is for one year each time, it’s really legally a non-fixed contract? If that, I can just give 30 days notice and I’m fine. If that’s not the case, what contract do I have and what are my options for ending it?

2

fixed term contract for a term of more than three years. if your contract is not longer than three years, you ate supposed to complete it. if it is really a fixed term contract.

but, in most cases, i guess they can quit with not much problems.

you could ask at labor department

1 Like
3

This is an illegal provision.

This is illegal as well.

Just give your thirty days. If anyone asks, then lie and say your mother is in the hospital and needs your help.

It sounds shitty, but this is how we save face in Taiwanese culture.

4 Likes
7

It may have been phrased differently. Can’t check without asking bc I don’t think they gave me a copy.

I forgot to say I asked about it and the person who gave it to me made a call to the main office and said the Chinese version wouldn’t be understood that way. What should it say about the employee wanting to quit that would make it legal?

What is the actual for quitting? I don’t understand which part of the law applies to me?

I thought about saying I’m quitting for health reasons. When Taiwanese have told me they’re quitting it’s always because of health, family’s health, or to study more. I guess they can still sue me if they find I’ve gone to another job.

8

Thanks, I misunderstood. I guess it is a one year fixed contract? I could call the labor department, but it’s hard to explain all this on the phone because I don’t understand it myself. Plus the only time I can call is when I’m at work, or leave during lunch and walk into the loud market.

9

it depends on your actual job. even if the contract is a fixed term on paper, it could be a job that a contract should be with non fixed term.

1 Like
10

Right, that’s the part I didn’t understand. Article 9 said a contract for continuous work can’t be fixed.

11

btw, you should have your contract.

if you think you cannot quit with a common face saving reason, or want to make sure they wouldn’t sue, couldn’t you take a leave?

12

did you renew a contract?

Labor Standards Act
article 9
…
In any one of the following situations, a fixed term contract shall be deemed as to be a non-fixed term upon the expiration of the contract:
…
2 Where, despite the execution of a new contract, the prior contract and the new one together cover a period of more than ninety days and the period of time between expiration of the prior contract and execution of the new one does not exceed thirty days.

iiuc, a role in a specific project, like big construction or something.

13

Do you want to quit faster than 30 days? If 30 days is fine, give 30 days and quit. If you want to leave faster, then look at the 10 and 20 day requirements.

14

Yes, more than once.

I don’t understand what that #2 point means. Does that mean if I signed a new contract after a year and continued working, it’s now considered non-fixed?

15

for me, it sounds so. isn’t it a simple enough question to call labor department to confirm?

as you posted, article 9 says

so, if the work is continuous but the contract is a fixed term, the contract could be illegal, and might be a reason you could quit without a notice. you might want to confirm it.

1 Like
16

I guess that’s the answer then. I doubt the contract is intentionally illegal because it’s a big company and I don’t think they’d take the risk. It could be that they haven’t adjusted to foreigners having open work permits and are giving the same contract to everyone. Contracts have to be fixed when applying for a work permit, afaik.

I found this today

That’s what I’ve really worried about, that they’ll be able to sue me under the civil code. Whether it was illegal or not, I still signed a contract. I don’t know if that makes it invalid. I don’t really understand why it’s illegal.

17

if you have a way to understand this, might give some idea

台灣高等法院93年度重勞上字第十一號判決
勞動基準法第九條非屬強制規定，勞雇契約違反前開規定，不能認為契約無效。雇主就繼續性工作與勞工簽訂定期勞動契約者，應認為雙方約定之契約期間條款無效，而視為不定期之勞動契約

quoted from https://sf-labourlawyer.com/commentdetail_8_15.html

1 Like
18

:rofl:

Sorry. :slightly_smiling_face:

Elsewhere in the world (I’m thinking of Canada), you might have a real problem as an employer if you misword the termination clause in a contract, even unintentionally, because it might invalidate more than just the clearly illegal part. (That wouldn’t necessarily stop a large company from doing it anyway – intentionally or not.)

In Taiwan though, an illegal termination clause is a problem in the sense that the illegal part can’t be enforced, but I haven’t seen a case in which it caused any trouble for the employer beyond that. I would love to be corrected about this if I’m missing something.

Anyway, the first thing that must be established if you want to have your contract recognized as permanent is that you are a permanent resident. You have an open work permit, so I’ll assume that’s because you’re a PR.

Just in case, I’ll also mention that if you are merely a foreign spouse, you do not have a permanent (non-fixed term) contract, unless they changed that rule while I wasn’t paying attention.

I’ll also assume your job is subject to the Labor Standards Act, as most jobs are. (Ask the labor department if you have any doubt about this.)

The definitions of those terms are found in the LSA Enforcement Rules, Art. 6. A one year contract is not temporary, short-term, or seasonal. However, a specific work (特定性工作) contract can be for up to one year, or longer with the approval of the labor department. So most likely, your contract is a specific work contract for a fixed term.

:wall:

Sorry, but why do people let employers get away with that?

Assuming your contract is for specific work, the second contract rule doesn’t apply because of LSA Art. 9 Par. 3:

前項規定於特定性或季節性之定期工作不適用之。
The preceding paragraph shall not apply in the case of a fixed term contract for specific or seasonal work.

(This kills the entire Par. 2, not just Par. 2 Subpar. 2, so even if your employer allowed you to continue working after the expiration of the first contract before giving you a second contract, it still doesn’t count.)

You would still have a contract, just not a perfect one. Afaik that would not be a sufficient reason to invoke LSA Art. 14. As I said though, the current contract is probably a fixed term contract.

If the contract is supposedly for a fixed term but actually for continuous work (i.e. the form of the contract doesn’t match the substance), the clause setting the duration of the contract is invalid, and the contract is deemed a non-fixed term contract. This assumes, of course, that nothing but the wording of that one part of the contract stands in the way of it being a non-fixed term contract. I wouldn’t rely on the fact (hypothetically) that the employer wants the worker to continue working for as many years as possible, because the employer’s decision to use specific work contracts gives the employer an easy way out of that.

One thing to understand about lawsuits in Taiwan is that in most cases you can’t win big damages. If the employer spent a lot of money recruiting you or training you or risks missing out on a huge amount of business because of your early departure, then it makes sense to sue you. Otherwise, the amount of money to be gained is probably not much more than the lawyer’s fee, if even that, so the employer would likely view it as a waste of time. (The losing party pays the court fee but not the winning party’s lawyer’s fee.) Of course, the option still exists.

As always, I suggest talking to the labor department and/or a lawyer.

1 Like
19

they cannot just say the contract is for a specific work. the job nature should be specific with a set goal to be completed within a certain period, and after the completion, employer should not need the specific project’s employees for their business. if it is not the case, the contract should be non fixed term, iiuc.

this.

without knowing op’s actual job and actual words in the contract, anybody cannot say certain things.

20

could you let me know why this is illegal?

added
because you asserted, i thought you maybe have some information that you can say it is illegal from the op, and it may be useful to others. but if it is just you believe so, never mind.

21

Honestly, it was my fault. I either didn’t photocopy it when I could have or lost it.

I googled the Chinese for specific work and it seems to be a task than can be completed from beginning to end, like installing equipment or developing software. My job goes on and on until the company goes bankrupt, or at least makes the position redundant.

If I didn’t say, this could just be a translation issue. It didn’t specifically say there were no other options for termination. It just didn’t say there were.
And I didn’t tell @Marco what my job is or any other information about it. I just don’t want to name it because there are a limited number of companies at which I could do it.

22

Ironically, the LSA’s definition of specific is not that specific.

I’ve just looked at a few precedents. When it comes to the definitions, they tend to say more or less specific work is not continuous and continuous work is not specific. For example, in 最高法院109年度台上字第1156號民事判決, we get this:

所稱之不定期勞動契約所需具備之「繼續性工作」，係指勞工所擔任之工作，就該事業單位之業務性質與營運而言，具有持續性之需要者，並非只有臨時性、短期性、季節性之一時性需要或基於特定目的始有需要而言。換言之，工作是否具有繼續性，應以相關法令及勞工實際從事工作之內容與性質，對於雇主事業單位是否具有持續性之需要而定，不受勞動契約簽訂之書面形式拘束。

It goes on to say that in that case, it wasn’t clear whether the contract was for specific work or not, and the email during the first year that said don’t worry bro, the yearly contracts are just company policy, you can switch to a permanent position next year raised significant doubt, so the Supreme Court sent the case back to the High Court, which found in 臺灣高等法院109年度重勞上更一字第9號民事判決 that it was continuous work. Besides the first email, there was one shortly after the start of the second contract (with an affiliated company) confirming that there was no need for the worker to request leave for the three day gap between the two contracts, but actually it was a four day gap, and the email also confirmed that on one of those days he was working and would be paid accordingly. And then there was the finding that

另依Ａ契約及B契約之內容，亦無隻字片語記載上訴人之工作，係基於何種特定目的需要且於特定期間即可完成。

the contracts were not very specific. The employer submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Court and lost (最高法院111年度台上字第9號民事裁定).

Definitely talk to an expert though, and for :robot:'s sake get a copy of the contract! :2cents:

23

I believe he means it’s illegal in the sense that a labor contract (meaning a contract subject to the LSA) can’t contract out of the minimum standards of the LSA, and among those standards is the worker’s right to terminate the contract for certain reasons.

If the contract contains a clause explicitly stating the worker cannot terminate the contract for any reason other than the reasons listed in the contract, and the contract doesn’t list all the reasons listed in the LSA, then that clause is void.

If, as @lookingforawayhome suggested, the contract says the worker can terminate for certain reasons and doesn’t say anything about whether or not there are other possible reasons, that may be misleading, but it’s still acceptable (in Taiwan).

1 Like