News and current affairs

A tour bus overturned recently, and the competent authorities required Dielianhua Travel Agency to produce a contract to clarify its relationship with the tour bus driver and tour leader. Dielianhua Travel Agency stated that the tour bus was registered under the name of Youli Express Company, and it had no employment relationship with the driver. However, Youli Express Company stated that the tour bus was purchased with the investment of Dielianhua Travel Agency, and the driver was also a member of the company. Because it was hired by Dielianhua Travel Agency, Dielianhua Travel Agency only paid monthly transportation fees to allow the tour bus to travel through Youli Express Company. The two companies are now at each other's throats over liability issues involving tour buses.

Full news content:

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20170215/37552575/

At present, in our country, tour buses, taxis, large trucks and other transportation vehicles are driven by individual drivers and organized by companies, which has gradually become a social norm. However, the types of driving are quite diverse, and the driver and the company being relied on have Is there an employment relationship between organizations? If a traffic accident occurs and the driver or persons accompanying the vehicle are injured or killed, how should the driver or persons accompanying the vehicle and their family members claim their rights from the insurance company to claim insurance benefits?

Note: "The so-called "employees" in Paragraph 1 of Article 188 of the Civil Code are not limited to those mentioned in the employment contract. Anyone who is objectively used by others to provide services and is subject to their supervision is an employee. "People." The purpose of the Civil Jurisprudence No. 1663 of the Supreme Court of China in 2007 can be used as a reference.

The Supreme Court of China has made many practical opinions over the years, such as the Supreme Court’s 1973 Taiwan Subscription No. 2691, the 1977 Taiwan Subscription No. 665, the 1982 Taiwan Subscription No. 1168, and the 1989 Taiwan Subscription No. 300 Civil Judgment Purpose. , both mean that the vehicles used for servicing, whether driven by the investor, hired others to co-drive, or rented, are foreseeable by the transportation company under normal circumstances, and the transportation company will add the additional citation when the driver applies for cruising. Choose carefully. If the driver has the right to drive (meaning that he is not driving due to theft or unauthorized possession), objectively he should be considered to be performing labor services for the transportation company, and the transportation company should bear the responsibility of the employer, etc. Therefore, it is "recognized" that the drivers who rely on transportation are employees of the transportation company being relied on. Therefore, the transportation company cannot shirk its responsibility on the grounds that the transportation system is only a product of administrative management, and the insurance company cannot shirk its responsibility on the ground that the transportation system is only a product of administrative management. The claim will be refused on the grounds that the bank relationship does not constitute an employment relationship.

However, the Tainan Branch of the Taiwan High Court, Civil Judgment No. 104, 104, once held that: "The tractor in dispute was purchased with ***'s investment, and *** signed a tow truck contract with the appellee on August 25, 1998. , the content of the contract is as set out in the aforementioned non-disputable matters (3), this is not disputed by the two companies, and it is the owner of the disputed towing vehicle who can decide on his own who to entrust, the type and price of the items to be carried, There is no doubt that *** operates for its own profit and is not included in the production organization system of the respondent. There is no division of labor and cooperation with other employees of the respondent. There is no employment relationship between *** and the respondent." , it depends on the actual cooperation model between the driver and the transportation company, whether the driver is subject to the management supervision of the transportation company, etc. to determine whether there is an employment relationship between the two.