Introduction:

Labor disputes are inevitable issues in social and economic development, and their handling requires following certain paths and methods. This article conducts an in-depth discussion on the four-step method for handling labor disputes, namely fixing facts, stating reasons, value judgments, and interest balancing, aiming to provide theoretical support and practical guidance for the proper resolution of labor disputes.

The handling of labor disputes concerns the vital interests of both workers and employers and affects social stability and harmony. In a market economy environment, labor relationships are becoming increasingly complex and diverse, and the quantity and types of labor disputes continue to increase. Therefore, establishing a scientific and reasonable approach to handling labor disputes holds important practical significance.

I. Fixing Facts: Evidence and Cross-Examination

In labor dispute cases, accurately and thoroughly fixing facts is the primary step in resolving disputes. This includes comprehensively sorting out and confirming all aspects related to the signing, performance, modification, and termination of labor contracts. For example, specific terms of labor contracts such as job content, work location, working hours, and remuneration; the worker’s actual work performance including attendance, task completion, and compliance with work discipline; and the employer’s management actions such as performance evaluations, disciplinary measures, enforcement of rules and regulations, statutory grounds for termination, institutional basis for termination, factual basis for termination, etc. Through fixing these facts, a solid foundation can be established for subsequent dispute handling.

(1) Allocation of Burden of Proof

In labor disputes, the allocation of burden of proof is crucial. Generally, for decisions made by the employer regarding termination of labor contracts, reduction of remuneration, etc., the employer bears the burden of proof; for worker claims such as overtime pay and work injury compensation, workers typically bear the initial burden of proof. The main scenarios are listed below:

(2) Types of Evidence and Collection

Common labor dispute evidence includes labor contracts, pay slips, attendance records, work emails, witness testimonies, etc. Employers should establish and improve personnel file management systems and properly preserve various documents related to labor relationships. Workers should also preserve relevant evidence from work, such as overtime applications and work results.

(3) Procedures and Key Points of Cross-Examination

Evidence cross-examination is an important link in judicial trials of labor disputes. Its authenticity, legality, and relevance have the following meanings:

Authenticity means that the content reflected by the evidence should be genuinely existing, not fabricated or distorted. For example, witness testimony should be statements made by witnesses based on their personal experience or direct perception; documentary evidence should be genuine original documents or legally confirmed copies; physical evidence should be genuinely existing and unaltered objects. For the authenticity of evidence, it is necessary to examine whether its source is reliable, whether the content is consistent, whether there are contradictions, etc.

Legality emphasizes that the acquisition, formation, and expression of evidence must comply with legal provisions.

This includes that the subject collecting evidence is legitimate, the collection procedure is legitimate, the form of evidence is legitimate, etc. For example, defendant confessions obtained through illegal means should be excluded; evidence obtained by infringing on the legitimate rights of others or violating legal prohibitions cannot be used as the basis for determining case facts.

Relevance means there is a substantive connection between the evidence and the fact to be proven, which can prove or refute the case facts. Relevance requires that evidence can logically and reasonably infer case facts and help the judge form an accurate judgment on the case.

In summary, authenticity, legality, and relevance are important standards for judging whether evidence can be accepted and used as the basis for determining case facts. All three are indispensable.

II. Stating Reasons: Statutory Grounds and Institutional Grounds for Terminating Labor Contracts

(1) Statutory Grounds for Terminating Labor Contracts

The statutory grounds for the employer to unilaterally terminate a labor contract cover multiple aspects. During the probationary period, if the worker is proven not to meet the recruitment conditions, the employer has the right to terminate the contract. Here, “not meeting recruitment conditions” requires clear standards and evidentiary support and cannot be subjectively and arbitrarily determined. Additionally, serious violations of labor discipline, serious violations of the employer’s rules and regulations, serious dereliction of duty, favoritism and fraud causing major damage to the employer, etc., are also statutory grounds for termination.

(2) Legality and Reasonableness of Rules and Regulations

When using serious violations of rules and regulations as a statutory ground for termination, the rules and regulations formulated by the employer must comply with legal provisions. This means that rules and regulations cannot conflict with current labor laws and regulations. At the same time, they should be formulated through democratic procedures and brought to the attention of workers to ensure workers are aware of their content. The content of rules and regulations should be reasonable and clear. For example, penalties for tardiness and early leave should be moderate, not overly severe or arbitrarily expanding consequences.

(3) Procedural Requirements for Terminating Labor Contracts

Employers should strictly follow statutory procedures when terminating labor contracts. Notifying the labor union is an important step.

Additionally, the termination notice is a crucial legal document that brings the employer’s unilateral termination of the labor contract into legal effect. Common errors in practice include the issuer being different from the labor contract signing party, the termination reason being inappropriate or inconsistent with facts, and the termination date not being specified. At the same time, employers must fulfill the corresponding service procedures for termination notices, especially when dealing with workers who leave without saying goodbye. Face-to-face service with signature is preferred, followed by express delivery and email. When all means have been exhausted and service remains impossible, public notice service can be chosen.

III. Interest Balancing and Value Judgment

“Interest balancing” and “value judgment”—Taiwanese scholar Yang Renshou, in his book “Legal Methodology,” offered the following explanation of “interest balancing”: “…interest balancing is to discover the legislature’s value judgments regarding various issues or conflicts of interest, as can be observed within the legal order. Discovering it is itself also a kind of value judgment.”

In labor law practice, every case exemplifies “value judgment” and “interest balancing.” In labor law affairs, regardless of the form of expression, there are underlying games of various interests, and the understanding of the priority order of interest protection is of great significance in guiding personnel management practice. In personnel management, the various interests of workers commonly seen include: the right to life and health, equal employment rights, freedom of occupational choice, the worker’s right to receive labor remuneration, the right to labor safety and sanitation protection, the right to rest and leave, reproductive rights, the right to social insurance and social welfare, etc.; the employer’s primary rights and interests include: business autonomy, and the right to employment management.

When the employer’s rights and the worker’s rights conflict, how should they be reconciled? For example, in situations of significant changes in objective circumstances, the employer’s business autonomy and the worker’s labor rights will conflict. In this case, the employer’s business autonomy needs protection—the law allows the employer to dismiss workers when significant objective changes occur, but the plan to reconcile the conflict of interests is: when the corresponding circumstances occur, the employer should negotiate changes with the worker; only when negotiation fails can termination occur, and economic compensation and advance notice compensation for failure to give advance notice should be paid upon termination.

Another example is termination due to being incapable of performing work twice—this is the conflict between the worker’s right to employment and the employer’s autonomy in employment. The law allows the employer to dismiss workers who are incapable of performing their work, but the reconciliation plan is: workers incapable of performing their work should be transferred to other positions or trained; only after being incapable twice can they be dismissed, and economic compensation and advance notice compensation should be paid upon termination.

Therefore, the law actually balances the conflicts of interest between employers and workers through these methods. Additionally, the labor law field includes some social interests and administrative interests. For example, the right to participate in social insurance—this right involves administrative rights and is an absolute right; even if the worker and the employer agree not to participate in social insurance, such agreement is invalid.

When these interests intertwine, which takes precedence? This will be an important direction and breakthrough for guiding labor practice handling.

The author understands “value judgment” as the direction of the national environment or legislation and enforcement, as well as the embodiment of “common sense, normal feelings, and normal reasons” and core socialist values such as fairness and integrity in case trials. “Value judgment” provides guiding principles and reasoning basis for “interest balancing,” while “interest balancing” more specifically explains the practical application of “value judgment.” The two complement each other. In labor law practice, we should all learn and be good at using the analytical methods of “value judgment” and “interest balancing”—to find the best way to build harmonious labor relationships amid complex regulations and numerous practical matters.

IV. Conclusion

The handling of labor disputes is a complex and systematic project that requires comprehensive application of methods such as fixing facts, stating reasons, interest balancing, and value judgment. During the handling process, the legitimate rights and interests of workers should be fully protected, the reasonable demands of employers should be respected, social interests should be considered, and principles such as fairness and integrity should be followed, to achieve proper resolution of labor disputes, build harmonious and stable labor relationships, and promote social economic development and long-term peace and stability.