Between the parties involved in a labor dispute, there is usually a gap in economic status. The worker has a strong need to continue working to maintain his/her livelihood and usually cannot afford the effort, time, and expenses required for long-term litigation, which directly affects the basic needs of the worker’s life. Compared to other civil disputes, labor disputes often need to be settled quickly.
It has been more than two years since the Labor Incident Act came into force on January 1, 2020. Wherein, “labor mediation procedures” carried out by “labor mediation committees” to help the parties handle labor disputes are deemed to be the most prominent feature of this law. A labor mediation committee is composed of a labor court judge and two mediators with knowledge and experience in labor affairs. Having non-judge mediators work with judges to conduct labor mediation procedures, similar to the recent judicial reform trend, carries the connotation of citizen participation in judicial procedures.
A Western proverb goes: A bad compromise is better than a good lawsuit. At the time of mediation or settlement, a compromise may seem quite disadvantageous ostensibly. But even when refusing to settle results in a favorable judgment which is seemingly better than the settlement plan, the procedural disadvantages of the time, money, and energy spent to obtain the favorable judgment may not, on balance, make settlement less beneficial than a favorable judgment.
The statistics for “labor mediation” by district courts in the past two years show that, in 2020, the rate of successfully established mediation was 52.64%, and, in 2021, although it decreased slightly, there was still 48.65%. Moreover, observing case outcomes of “labor litigations,” we see that in 2020 and 2021, 26.27% and 24.21% of the cases were resolved through settlement and mediation, respectively. That is, more than half of the labor disputes handled by the courts were resolved through agreements between the parties. For the parties in labor disputes who have the need to resolve disputes quickly, labor mediation should be a very attractive dispute resolution mechanism.
Comparing labor mediation procedures in courts with labor dispute mediations conducted by labor bureaus of local county or city governments (or organizations entrusted to conduct labor dispute mediations), the biggest difference between them is that labor mediation procedures in courts, in addition to mediators, also have judges participating. The public should ditch the misconception that mediations are simply “making parties compromises with unjustifiable incentives.” Mediations are not procedures to ask others to give up their rights through unreasonable negotiations or threats and enticements. The labor mediation procedure is, through mediators with professional knowledge of labor and management, bringing professional knowledge and experience in the field of labor into the court and exploring jointly with the judge the intentions and the potential interests of the parties to formulate different mediation plans (such as those for the restoration of personal reputation of the worker, consideration of business operations, etc.). In the process, the judge will also listen to the parties’ statements, sort out the issues, investigate the evidence, and inform the parties of the possible outcome of the lawsuit at appropriate times, so that the parties can decide whether to accept the mediation plans or not.  
Even if the mediation fails to conclude, the subsequent trial will be adjudicated by the same judge. The evidence obtained by the judge through the labor mediation procedure can continue to be used in the litigation process. Therefore, a labor mediation procedure is equivalent to a preparatory procedure for litigation. It would not be seen as merely the procedure for negotiating an amount simply because it is called “mediation.”
Since labor mediation procedures of the court, when compared to the labor dispute mediation procedure of administrative agencies, have the aforementioned characteristics, workers (the initiative party in most labor disputes) should not assume their court mediation will not succeed just because their mediation in an administrative agency fails and decide to file a lawsuit without applying for labor mediation first. In this case, they may miss the opportunity to quickly resolve the dispute. Since labor mediation procedures adopt the method of “trial and investigation in parallel,” in most types of cases, the labor mediation committee would hear the case and mediate at the same time. Even if the mediation fails, since the case has gone through labor mediation, the judge would already have a certain degree of grasp of the facts and evidence of the case and could speed up the proceedings in the future. It would not be a waste of time even if the mediation fails. Therefore, workers should not be afraid to go to the court for labor mediations.
On the other hand, businesses (often the passive party in most labor disputes), upon receiving a labor mediation notice from the court, should not mistake it as merely a “mediation” procedure and ignore it. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraphs 5 & 6 of Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act, employers are obliged to have on file wage records and attendance records of workers, and, pursuant to Article 35 of the Labor Incident Act, employers are obliged to provide the aforementioned documents.
Businesses should actively study their direction of the defense and prepare relevant documents requested by the court. In addition to avoiding the detriment of “the effects of abridgment of rights” in the procedure, businesses may possibly use the principle of private trial of labor mediation procedures, through confidentiality agreements, waiver clauses, etc., to not only take care of the needs of the business but also resolve disputes once and for all.

(This article was published in the Expert’s Commentary Column of the Commercial Times：https://view.ctee.com.tw/tax/38423.html）

‍