Email Consultation
Fictional scene
← Back to InsightsLegal Information

A Taiwan strike reaches U.S. headquarters: damages demands, dismissals and the employee’s deadline

6 min read

Fictional scene

Does the Taiwan operation want to recover money from workers, end their employment, or both? A U.S. manager reviewing a response to a strike needs the proposed measures and their reasons. For an American employee receiving a damages demand alongside a dismissal notice, the two documents raise different legal questions.

The reason behind the personnel decision

Taiwan’s Labor Union Act, Article 35, prohibits the adverse treatment it specifies because of union activity, collective bargaining, or participation in or support for industrial action. It binds employers and those exercising management authority on their behalf. Dismissal, demotion or a wage reduction that violates the provision is invalid. The stated reason matters. Internal approval cannot replace an assessment of that reason under Taiwan law.

The manager’s file therefore needs to connect the proposed decision to the conduct relied on; an employee’s copy of the notice helps establish what reason was actually given. Relevant messages may explain whether the company was responding to participation, support for the union, or a particular incident. Calling a measure disciplinary does not settle that question.

Timing adds another constraint. Article 8 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes applies while mediation, arbitration or adjudication is pending. During that period, an employer may not close or suspend operations, terminate employment contracts or otherwise disadvantage workers because of the same dispute. Employees may not strike or take other industrial action because of it. The connection to that dispute is required; the provision does not prohibit every unrelated staffing decision.

An arbitration notice can thus change the assessment of a proposed personnel measure and the workers’ next action. Article 25 allows a joint arbitration application after failed mediation or a written agreement to go directly to arbitration. It also provides other statutory routes, including referrals in qualifying public-interest cases. For headquarters, a report recording only failed mediation leaves the later procedural position unanswered.

A demand for money needs its own examination

An employee asked to reimburse strike losses needs to know which action allegedly caused the loss and who is being asked to pay. Article 55 bars an employer from claiming compensation from a union and its members for damage caused by industrial action taken under the Act. Its opening paragraph requires good faith and prohibits abuse of rights. A demand’s amount does not determine whether this protection applies.

Union membership, action notices and participation records help identify the people and conduct at issue. Whether the action followed the statutory route also matters. Under Article 5, a dispute over existing rights under legislation, a collective agreement or an employment contract differs from one over maintaining or changing working conditions.

That distinction affects the available action. Article 53 prohibits strikes over rights disputes and generally requires unsuccessful mediation before industrial action. Paragraph 2 provides a special route where the central competent authority has adjudicated the specified employer or employer-organization violations of Labor Union Act Article 35 or Collective Agreement Act Article 6(1). A description such as “pay dispute” is too broad to establish which rule applies.

Criminal allegations require examination of the conduct itself. Article 55 protects union and member action that satisfies criminal-offense elements only where the action is justified. Violence or threats harming or endangering another person’s life or body are expressly excluded. An incident report needs to describe the alleged act; a total for lost output cannot establish it.

What voting records can establish

A record showing majority support needs to identify what was put to members and how they voted. Article 54 requires a direct, secret ballot with approval from more than half of all union members before the union declares a strike or establishes a picket line. A survey about accepting an offer does not, merely by attracting a majority, establish that requirement.

Industry restrictions remain relevant. Teachers and workers of the Ministry of National Defense and its subordinate bodies and schools cannot strike. The listed water, electricity, gas, hospital and financial-service businesses require necessary-service arrangements; specified telecommunications businesses must maintain basic voice service. Article 54 also permits governments to prohibit, restrict or stop strikes in qualifying major-disaster circumstances. These conditions remain part of assessing the action behind a damages demand.

Different workplaces may also be at different stages. CNA’s October 22, 2026 report said Micron had reached agreement with its Taichung union while Taoyuan talks had not produced agreement. The subsequent outcome remained unresolved. That report supplies context, not a legal ruling on any participant’s conduct.

The employee’s deadline can run while talks continue

Ongoing negotiations do not postpone the starting point for challenging an anti-union dismissal, demotion or pay cut. For disputes under Labor Union Act Article 35(2), Article 39 of the labor-dispute Act allows an application to the central competent authority within 90 days starting the day after the employee learns of the violating grounds or facts. This deadline belongs to that remedy. It is not a general deadline for every employment claim.

Dated notices and messages can help establish when those grounds or facts became known. Ordinary termination payments raise a further question addressed in the Taiwan severance column; a payment calculation does not determine whether an anti-union dismissal was valid.

A Taiwan lawyer can assess the proposed measure or damages demand against the union and procedural records, and represent an employee seeking an unfair-labor-practice adjudication. Consultations with an English-speaking lawyer in Taipei are available through Hovering International Law Firm at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw. Taipei: 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei City 103. Taichung: 6F-1, No. 19, Guanqian Rd., North Dist., Taichung City 40453 (臺中市北區館前路19號6樓之1).

For that review, the employee’s notice belongs beside the company’s approval request, including the reasons and dates in each.

Sources

Checked: October 23, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an employer recover production losses from striking employees?
Article 55 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes bars employer claims for damage caused by a union and its members through industrial action taken under that Act. The protected persons and the lawfulness of the action must be established; every work stoppage is not automatically covered.
Can workers strike during arbitration after mediation failed?
Article 8 prohibits industrial action because of the same dispute while mediation, arbitration or adjudication is pending. It also prohibits the employer from taking the listed adverse actions because of that dispute. An earlier vote and failed mediation do not remove the later procedural restriction.
What is the adjudication deadline after an anti-union dismissal or pay cut?
For a dispute arising under Labor Union Act Article 35(2), Article 39 permits an employee to seek adjudication by the central competent authority within 90 days beginning the day after learning of the violating grounds or facts. The measure and its connection to protected activity need to be identified.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.

Related reading