The Labor Dispute Act was passed by the Legislative Yuan on November 9, 2018 and promulgated on December 5, 2018 to be effective at the end of 2019. Wherein Article 37, the "presumptions of wages," and Article 38, the "presumptions of the number of working hours," have specific provisions regarding the burden of proof which tend to favor workers in labor litigation and would, on the other hand, add to the burden of proof for businesses (employers). In order to minimize such disadvantage during litigation, businesses need to strengthen the management of their work rules and relevant information in advance.

‍

Article 37 of the Labor Dispute Act provides, "In wage disputes between workers and employers, if it can be proved that the worker received payments from the employer based on a working relationship, the remuneration is presumed to be paid for the work performed. " Therefore, in labor litigation, as long as the worker can provide evidence for the fact that "the payment received was from the employer based on a working relationship," such payment is presumed to be remuneration to the worker for the duties performed. However, it is not unquestionable whether all payments from the employer are considerations for duties performed. Under the assumption of this article, the employer must prove which part of the payments from the employer is not remuneration for the worker's duties. Hence, when making payments to the worker, the employer shall clearly state the description and the method of calculation for the payment, and shall provide in its work rules the method to request for payments and the method payments will be made for various types of work, in order to make it easier for the employer to prove in the court that a payment does not have the characteristic of "consideration for work" or "regular payment."

‍

Article 38 of the Labor Dispute Act provides, "It is presumed that the work hours recorded on the workers’ timesheet indicates that the worker has performed duties with the employer's permission during the aforementioned hours."  As such, in labor litigation, as long as the worker can provide his/her timesheet, if the hours recorded in the timesheet indicate that such hours exceed regular work hours, the worker may request for overtime pay based on Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act.  That is, based on this article, it is presumed that "the worker has the employer's permission to perform its duties during such hours."  However, it is not unquestionable of whether the worker has performed its duties during such hours under the employer’s permission. It is possible that there were recess periods during such hours, or that the worker has not obtained the permission from the employer to work overtime.  All the hours under the aforementioned circumstances shall not be counted toward the work hours.  As such, to overturn the aforementioned presumptions, the employer must provide labor contract, work rules, or other administrative data as counterevidence. Hence, businesses shall amend their labor contracts and work rules to specify non-working hours and the procedure of overtime application clearly.  The employer shall also record the details on relevant work records or logs and strengthen their management so that it will be easier for the businesses to overturn the presumption of this article in future labor litigations.

‍