The Supreme Court rendered the 104-Tai-Shang-129 Civil Decision of January 22, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), in which it was expounded that the failure of employers to submit their work rules to the competent authorities for reference is merely a matter of whether the employer should be penalized and has no bearing on the fact that the work rules are part of the labor contract.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellant's labor contract was terminated by the Appellee for reasons set forth in Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act. As a result, a declaratory suit was filed to confirm the existence of the employment contract between the parties. After the first instance trial court rendered against the Appellant a judgment upheld by the original trial court, which rejected his appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
According to the interpretation in the Decision, work rules agreed between an employee and an employer as terms of labor are effectively binding to the employee and employer. Except for circumstances where the work rules violate mandatory legal requirements or collective agreements, both the employee and employer should be bound by the work rules. Even though the employer fails to submit the work rules to the competent authorities for reference in accordance with Article 70 of the Labor Standards Act, the only issue involved is whether the employer should be penalized under Article 79, Subparagraph 1 of the same law, and this has no bearing on the fact that the work rules are part of labor contract.
It was further held in the Decision that the evaluation requirements at issue established by the Appellee have stipulated in detail the evaluation items which would lead to discontinued employment of an associate researcher and have been circulated to relevant units and known to the Appellant as part of the labor contract. Although the evaluation requirements at issue were not submitted to the local competent authority for reference, this does not render the requirements invalid. Based on the above-mentioned position, the original trial was not legally erroneous in rendering a judgment against the Appellant. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.