civil

According to the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 2 and Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, wages should be paid directly to workers in full, and employers are not allowed to withhold wages from workers as liquidated damages or compensation, unless otherwise stipulated by law or agreed upon by both parties. Those who are not subject to this limitation. The so-called "withholding of workers' wages" can be referred to the Supreme Administrative Court's 1991 Judgment No. 608: "The so-called "withholding" in Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act means that the employer shall not withhold the wages of workers before a breach of contract or damage occurs. As far as wages are concerned as a guarantee for future unexpected events, even if the breach of contract or damage has already occurred, the employer must not dispute the amount of income claimed by the employer before the employer can offset the employee's wage claim with the amount of the breach of contract or damage. Accordingly, if the employee does not recognize the amount requested by the employer, he shall seek compensation from the employee through litigation and shall not withhold the employee's wages." According to the above legal provisions and practical opinions, it can be seen that the employer has incurred liquidated damages or If the debt is damaged, the debtor may exercise its debt and demand payment from the laborer, or directly set off the debts that should be paid to the laborer by offsetting each other. However, the prerequisite for the exercise of offset must be that the claims and debts of both parties are clear and there are no disputes or other disputes. Only then can it comply with the legislative intent of the Labor Standards Act. If a worker disputes the employer's claim for credit, the employer shall not withhold the worker's wages, in order to comply with the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 2 and Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act.

However, the scope within which the employer can offset workers' wages should also consider the workers' living needs and impose considerable restrictions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court’s Judgment No. 1412 in 1986: “The employer’s debt for wages payable to workers is within the scope of offset. It should still be considered that workers’ wages are part of the livelihood of workers and their families, and should not be the subject of seizure. As for compulsory execution (see Article 52, Paragraph 1, and Article 122 of the Enforcement Act), there is no claim for offset (see Article 338 of the Civil Code). If this is allowed, the employer will pay. When labor wage debts are offset against each other, in principle, it is legal only to the extent that it does not affect the livelihood of workers and their families.