There’s no workplace discrimination in Taiwan. Surprise!
After over nine months of deliberation on how to play down this controversy, justices Xu Zongli (許宗力), Lu Tailang (呂太郎), and You Boxiang (尤伯祥) on April 8th, 2024 wrote a dismissal, labeling the case as “having no merit” to be heard. Discrimination simply wasn’t a Constitutional issue for them because it’s not discrimination, it’s just the law, and Taiwan IS a democracy, but only for the Taiwanese.
That’s the problem with any Taiwan discrimination. There is no definition of what discrimination is. It is down to a tribunal who never rule in your favor.
Typically, cases with no merit are dismissed within 2-3 weeks after the appeal is received […]. My case spent NINE MONTHS in deliberation. […] But the Court couldn’t just accept the case and then rule against me. That would mean publicly admitting that it is okay to discriminate […] So they did the next best thing. […] After over nine months of deliberation on how to play down this controversy, justices […] wrote a dismissal, labeling the case as “having no merit” to be heard
This really explains why Taiwan often ranks rather well on many rankings on freedom, democracy etc. and is internationally perceived very well in these aspects - they know exactly that a judgement (negative or positive) would harm this image.
So they choose the face-saving way and dismiss the case after dragging it for as long as possible. Extremely calculated…
I think I said this a long time ago. The reasoning can be weak and still accepted. I.e “oh it will cost us a lot of money to be able to accept foreigner ID numbers.”
Man if only he knew that only way to make things work in taiwan is publically shaming the officials. Idk maybe make the BBC write an article about it and post it online like bloomberg or something and when it gets picked up, then they would take it as something with a merit.
Otherwise laws in taiwan is like beating your child with doors closed. No one saw it, so it didnt happen. Stupid analogy i know
The petitioner requested a constitutional review regarding the confirmation of the existence of an employment relationship. The court ruled as follows:
Ruling
This case is not accepted for review.
Reasoning
The petitioner asserts that in seeking confirmation of the existence of an employment relationship, the Supreme Court’s Civil Judgment No. 296 of the 111th year (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed ruling”) distinguishes an employer’s ability to sign a fixed-term contract for continuous labor services based on whether the worker is a national of Taiwan. The petitioner argues that this distinction violates Articles 7 and 15 of the Constitution, and therefore requests a constitutional review of the ruling.
According to the Constitutional Litigation Act, when a person’s constitutionally protected rights are unlawfully infringed upon and all levels of judicial remedies have been exhausted, if the final ruling is believed to contradict the Constitution, the person may petition the Constitutional Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality. However, if the petition does not conform to procedural requirements or lacks other necessary conditions, the court may unanimously rule that it is not accepted, as specified in Article 59, Paragraph 1, and Article 15, Paragraph 2, Item 7 of the Constitutional Litigation Act.
Upon review, the petitioner’s case for confirming the existence of an employment relationship was previously dismissed by the Taipei District Court in Civil Judgment No. 8 of the 110th year for serious labor disputes. The petitioner then appealed to the Taiwan High Court, which upheld the dismissal in Civil Judgment No. 12 of the 110th year. Subsequently, the disputed ruling dismissed the petitioner’s final appeal as groundless. Therefore, it is established that the disputed ruling is the final and conclusive judgment in this case.
Upon reviewing the petitioner’s arguments, it is evident that they merely express a subjective opinion challenging the court’s interpretation of the Employment Service Act, without specifically identifying how the disputed ruling misinterprets or weighs fundamental rights in violation of the Constitution. Since the petition does not meet the requirements of Article 59, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Litigation Act, it is therefore unanimously ruled inadmissible in accordance with Article 15, Paragraph 2, Item 7 of the same Act.
Dated: April 8, 2024
First Review Panel of the Constitutional Court
Presiding Justice: Justice -------
Justice: Justice -------
Justice: Justice -------
This document is certified as a true copy of the original.
I disagree, it’s a constitutional court not court of what is right. It has one job and that is to make sure shit follow the constitution. It is not their job to rule whether a law, or a firing in this case, is just or not, only whether it is constitutional or not.
The point is that they chose not to make a ruling: Instead they dismissed the case without making one (at least that’s how I understand it). And that after internally considering whether the case is “worth” to be ruled on for over nine months (one should assume that if it take the judges that long to answer this question, there might be some relevant judgment to be made…).
Did they actually deliberate for nine months? If so I will admit it sounds suspicious. Rather it probably is the time from appealing to the court and verdict. Courts are meticulous and so much stuff have to happen in legal settings before a verdict is delivered or even a hearing is scheduled. They are judges of the constitutional court, I’m sure they had more important stuff to prioritize over some unjustified firing dispute. I’d guess they actually threw it out as promptly as they could.
