Legal Threshold For Labor And Employment In The Asia Pacific Region

According to the data released in May 2013, there are more than 590000 dispatched workers in Taiwan, and this figure is still increasing at an unprecedented rate. Therefore, the existing law governing the dispatch of workers is not enough to deal with this change and is out of date. In order to solve this problem, the Taiwan labor Commission adopted the draft law on the dispatch of labour protection in February 6, 2014.

In essence, the draft seeks to reduce the use of dispatched workers as a principle. In order to achieve this goal, the law is applicable to the types of work dispatched by dispatched workers. Conduct Restrictions are imposed and the upper limit on the proportion of dispatched workers to be sent to units or enterprises is set. The bill also gives the dispatched workers the same rights as full-time employees who are to be sent. For example, the dispatched workers have the right to sign labor contracts with the units to be sent after a year's continuous work. If the dispatched worker fails to receive wages in time or suffers damage due to work, the sending organization and the sending unit will bear joint and several liability.

Mainland China: the government restricts the opportunities for foreign companies to use their labor to dispatch employees.

The Provisional Regulations on the dispatch of labor services formulated by the Ministry of human resources and social security in January 24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Interim Provisions") came into effect in March 1st. The implementation of the Interim Provisions shows that China's legislation restricts the intention of foreign investment enterprises to use labor dispatching staff, and the rights of dispatched employees are similar to those of contract employees in common law countries. The history of labor dispatch can be traced back to the early stage of China's opening up of foreign investment in more than 30 years ago. Initially, the arrangement was used to limit the development of representative offices established by foreign investors and to control the scale of local employment in representative offices. The representative offices of foreign entities are not allowed to directly hire employees through certain government designated employment. service Agencies (such as foreign enterprise human resources Services Limited) employ local staff and receive dispatch.

Through the use of labor dispatching staff, foreign invested enterprises can avoid the application of the labor contract law, which came into force in January 1, 2008. The labor contract law contains strict requirements for the termination of labor relations, but these requirements are not applicable to the dispatched staff, and the dispatched employees have limited protection only. In order to change this situation, China's legislature has passed the "decision on Revising the labor contract law" and its relevant provisions to provide a greater degree of protection for these employees. The decision and stipulations clearly stipulate that labor dispatch is only a supplementary form of labor relations and is limited to temporary and alternative posts. In addition, the decision provides for the upper limit of the number of employees dispatched by foreign companies to use: that is, no more than 10% of the total employment of the foreign company.

Singapore: government balances employers' needs and employees' rights

The employment, maternity leave and other measures act of 2013 (the "EPLOM bill") has brought about significant changes to the Singapore Employment Act (EA), which has been expanded. staff It protects and improves employment standards and recognizes employers' actual business considerations and competitiveness. The EPLOM bill also made some amendments to the child development common Savings Act. In addition to the forty-fifth articles relating to severance pay in Singapore Employment Act, most of the changes in the EPLOM bill came into force in April 1, 2014.

The main amendments to the Singapore Employment Act include: (1) expand the salary ceiling for employees in the whole and fourth parts of the bill so as to extend the protection of labour to more employees; (2) raise labor standards and employee benefits in the areas of salary deduction, severance payment and collective representation of trade union representatives; (3) increase the flexibility in overtime payment, improper dismissal, public holiday work, sick leave and medical expenses in plastic surgery, and relax restrictions; and (4) enhance the executive ability and the compliance of employment standards by increasing relevant penalties and granting more powers to labour supervisors.

Two, important decisions or decisions of local courts and regulatory authorities.

Japan: massive layoffs caused by economic needs are identified as legal

Japan Airlines International Limited (JALI), which is a major airline company of JAL group, joined the Japanese airlines and the JAL Vantage Capitals Ltd in January 2010 to apply for launching the company restructuring process. After the program started, as part of the company's restructuring plan, JAL group made a decision to lay off about 16000 people before the end of March 2011, including group JALI.

According to the decision, in order to meet the target of redundancy, JALI repeatedly sold its employees (including crew and flight attendants) to early retirement plans with preferential conditions (including extra special severance payments). In order to achieve the target of layoffs, although the company and the Union held the explanatory meeting and the collective bargaining Conference (explaining the necessity of the company reorganization plan and the need for layoffs) and held private meetings with the employees, the number of employees applying for the early retirement scheme did not meet the JALI target.

As a result, JALI cut 81 crew members and 84 flight attendants at the end of December 2010. 76 crew members and 72 flight attendants in the dismissed employees filed a separate lawsuit against JALI at the Tokyo district court, claiming that JALI dismissal was invalid and requested the court to confirm that its labor relationship with the company was still in existence, requiring the company to pay the related expenses (including remuneration) as at the date of judgment.

The two judgments of the district court confirm that the lifting of the labor relations under the sixteenth clause of the labor contract law also applies to companies in the reorganization process. The sixteenth provision of the Act provides that employees dismissed as "objectively lacking reasonable reasons and not socially accepted" are invalid. On the other hand, according to the sixteenth article, the following four factors need to be considered in order to relieve the labor relationship on the grounds of business needs ("economic layoffs"): (1) the necessity of reducing the level of employees; (2) the necessity to choose layoffs as a means of reorganization; (3) whether the choice of staff reduction is fair; and (4) whether the procedure is fair. It is important to note that the local court considers that the above four factors should be considered as a whole rather than four independent conditions in order to make economic layoffs effective. In March 2012, the Tokyo district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in the two case on the grounds of legal "economic layoffs".

The plaintiff of the two case appealed to the high court of Tokyo. The high court of Tokyo rejected appeals in June 3, 2014 and June 5th respectively. The plaintiff submitted the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Japan on 17 June 2014. The Supreme Court has not yet made a judgement in writing this article.

Australia: the fair labour Committee collegiate panel finds that multinational corporations are not obliged to resettle employees overseas when they are layoffs in Australia.

In the case of Murray v. Ventyx Pty Ltd ([2014] FWCFB 2143), the complainant was originally a technical project manager hired by Ventyx Pty according to the Australian modern remuneration Ordinance, and the complainant later became one of the nine employees who were abolished by the company in Australia. In July 1st, Ventyx informed Murray that the decision would take effect on the next working day. At a meeting on that day, Murray was told that it had to provide any additional information related to the decision to Ventyx company. Although Murray has expressed the intention of resettlement overseas, it is still being abolished. Murray appeals to the company's decision on the grounds of its abolition of equity in violation of fairness.

The fair labour Commission believes that under the modern remuneration Ordinance, Ventyx should take into account the means of resettlement and discuss it early if feasible. The collegial panel of the fair labour Commission supports the appeal of Ventyx company on the grounds that the resettlement cost is too high. In view of the importance of the confidential information of the Murray involved in the work, the discussion of the related issues has actually started as soon as possible. The employer is not obliged to resettle Murray overseas. The company's layoffs under the modern remuneration Ordinance require that employees' requirements be considered as soon as possible under the "feasible premise", and that the safety and confidentiality factors need to be considered. The collegial panel also considers that resettlement should be practicable. As a result, if there is no commercial feasibility for overseas placement, employers may refuse to provide overseas placement for employees when layoffs are made.

Australia: anti trust regulators are facing the misconduct of trade unions.

The Australian anti trust and Consumer Council (ACCC) recently confirmed that the agency is investigating two independent trade union misconduct cases. The investigation took place in the context of ACCC's recent criticism of the handling of such incidents and the Royal Commission's investigation into trade union governance and corruption.

The first investigation was related to the indirect resistance of a trade union to a company's behavior. The reason for the boycott was that the company supplied the company with another dispute with the union. The act violates Australia's 2010 anti monopoly and consumer act, which prohibits trade unions and their members from interfering in the supply of goods to one another.

The second investigation relates to the legality of an agreement between a transport company and its trade associations. The agreement alleges that the transport company pays the association to the association. In return, the association intends to initiate relevant security complaints against the operation of the competitor of the transport company. The two investigations are underway, which highlights the active attitude of the Australian federal government and its agencies to the trade union's illegality.