The impacts of industry 4.0 on the law and how can we respond to it - focusing on the employment law

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (995.1 KB, 18 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

HỘI THẢO KHOA HỌC QUỐC TẾ

LUẬT HỌC TRƯỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI

International Conference

Laws in a Changing World

TẬP 1

Co-organizer: Sponsored by:

RISC CONSORTIUM

U R I N C O 7

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

LỜI CÁM ƠN

Ban Tổ chức Hội thảo khoa học quốc tế ―Luật học trước biến đổi của thời đại‖ (Laws
in a Changing World) xin chân thành cám ơn:

TS. Nguyễn Mạnh Thắng – Chủ tịch Hội đồng Quản trị, Tổng Giám đốc Công ty
Cổ phần đầu tư Đô thị và Khu công nghiệp Sông Đà 7 đã hỗ trợ kinh phí để tổ chức Hội thảo
này;

Mạng lưới Nghiên cứu so sánh về Hội nhập khu vực và gắn kết xã hội (RISC) đã hỗ
trợ về tài chính cho cơng tác tổ chức, hỗ trợ công tác xuất bản Kỷ yếu Hội thảo;

Viện nghiên cứu phát triển xã hội (ISDS) đã tham gia phối hợp tổ chức Hội thảo;
Quý chuyên gia, nhà khoa học đã quan tâm, dành thời gian viết bài và tới tham dự,
chia sẻ tại Hội thảo này.

Trân trọng cám ơn và kính chúc sức khỏe, hạnh phúc, thành công!

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

CHƢƠNG TRÌNH DỰ KIẾN HỘI THẢO QUỐC TẾ

“LUẬT HỌC TRƢỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI”

Thời gian: Từ 8h00-17h00, ngày 20/8/2019 (Thứ Ba)

Địa điểm: Tòa nhà Sunwah, Khu Quảng trƣờng ĐHQGHN, 
 (số 144, Xuân Thủy, Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội)

7h30-8h00 Đăng ký đại biểu

8h00-8h10 Tuyên bố lý do, giới thiệu đại biểu, khách mời
8h10-8h20 Phát biểu khai mạc của Chủ nhiệm Khoa Luật

BUỔI SÁNG 
Phiên 1:

LÝ THUYẾT PHÁP LUẬT TRƢỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI 
(TS. Fiona Donson; PGS.TS. Vũ Công Giao)

8h20-8h40 Cách mạng công nghiệp 4.0: Những ảnh hưởng của CMCN 4.0 và
sự đòi hỏi của pháp luật

GS.TS. Geng-Schenq Lin 
8h40-8h55 Nhà nước pháp quyền ở Việt Nam – Những giá trị cốt lõi và

những khía cách tiếp cận mới

GS.TSKH. Đào Trí Úc 
8h55-9h10 Những trường phái khoa học về pháp luật trên thế giới và những

ảnh hưởng tới luật học ở Việt Nam

GS.TS. Phạm Hồng Thái 
ThS.NCS. Nguyễn Anh Đức 
9h10-9h25 Nhận diện về những thay đổi của pháp luật trong bối cảnh công

nghệ số

PGS.TS. Nguyễn Thị Quế Anh 
9h25-10h15 Thảo luận

10h15-10h20 Giải lao

Phiên 2:

LUẬT TƢ TRƢỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI 
(GS. TS, Geng-Schenq Lin; PGS.TS. Ngô Huy Cƣơng)

10h20-10h40 Sự phát triển của trí tuệ nhân tạo và pháp luật ở Đài Loan: Phân
tích trường hợp trách nhiệm xe tự hành.

GS. JSENG Pin-Chieh (Đài Loan)

10h40-10h55 Cải cách chế định vật quyền nhằm đáp ứng các yêu cầu của đời
sống xã hội Việt Nam hiện đại

PGS.TS. Ngô Huy Cương 
10h55-11h10 Pháp luật lao động của Việt Nam trước biến đổi của thời đại

PGS.TS. Lê Thị Hoài Thu 
PGS.TS. Trần Thị Thúy Lâm 
11h10-12h00 Thảo luận

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

BUỔI CHIỀU 
Phiên 3:

LUẬT CÔNG TRƢỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI 
(GS. JSENG Pin-Chieh; PGS.TS. Nguyễn Hoàng Anh)

13h30-13h45 Minh bạch tư pháp – Những vấn đề nghiên cứu đặt ra ở Việt Nam
trước biến đổi của thời đại

PGS.TS. Nguyễn Ngọc Chí 
13h45-14h00 Chế độ tiếp cận mở trong sở hữu và triển vọng ở Việt Nam

NCS. Nguyễn Quang Đức 
14h00-14h20 Quản trị tốt trong thế giới hiện đại

TS. Fiona Donson; TS. Lawrence Siry 
14h20-15h15 Thảo luận

15h15-15h20 Giải lao

Phiên 4:

QUYỀN CON NGƢỜI VÀ MỘT SỐ VẤN ĐỀ KHÁC CỦA

LUẬT HỌC TRƢỚC BIẾN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI 
(PGS.TS. Chu Hồng Thanh; GS. Bard Andreassen)

15h20-15h40 Nghĩa vụ xuyên biên giới của doanh nghiệp: Cách tiếp cận nhân
quyền mới hiện nay

GS. Bard Andreassen 
15h40-15h55 Pháp luật tố tụng dân sự trong kỷ nguyên số

TS. Nguyễn Bích Thảo 
15h55-16h10 Trợ giúp pháp lý như là biện pháp cốt yếu để tiếp cận công lý

trong xã hội hiện đại: Nghiên cứu trường hợp Việt Nam

PGS.TS. Vũ Công Giao; NCS. Hồng Bích Ngọc 
16h10-16h45 Thảo luận

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

TENTATIVE AGENDA OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

“LAWS IN A CHANGING WORLD”

Venue: Building Sunwah, VNU Square, 144, Xuan Thuy Street, Cau Giay District, Hanoi 
On 20th August 2019 (Tuesday)

7h30-8h00 Registration

8h00-8h20 Introduction and Opening Remark: Dean of the School of Law, VNU

FIRST SESSION:

LEGAL THEORIES IN A CHANGING WORLD

(Chair: Dr. Fiona Donson; Assoc. Prof.Dr. Vũ Công Giao)

8h20-8h40 Industry 4.0: The Impacts of Industry 4.0 and How the Law
Should Respond to it

Prof. Geng-Schenq Lin 
8h40-8h55 The rule of law in Vietnam – Core values and new aspects of approach

Prof. Dr. Dao Tri Uc 
8h55-9h10 Schools of Jurisprudence and Influences on jurisprudence in Vietnam
Prof. Dr. Pham Hong Thai – PhD Candidate Nguyen Anh Duc 
9h10-9h25 Identify changes of laws in the digital technology context

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thi Que Anh 
9h25-10h15 Discussions

10h15-10h20 Tea break

SECOND SESSION:

PRIVATE LAW IN A CHANGING WORLD

(Chair: Prof. Geng-Schenq Lin; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Huy Cƣơng)

10h20-10h40 The Development of AI and Law in Taiwan - Focus on Autonomous
Car Liability

Prof. JSENG Pin-Chieh 
10h40-10h55 Real right institution reform to meet the requirements of Vietnamese

modern social life

Assoc. Prof. Dr Ngo Huy Cuong 
10h55-11h10 Vietnam‘s Labour Law in the Changing era

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Thi Hoai Thu 
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Thi Thuy Lam 
11h10-12h00 Discussions

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

THIRD SESSION:

PUBLIC LAW IN A CHANGING WORLD

(Prof. JSENG Pin-Chieh; Assoc. Prof.Dr. Nguyễn Hoàng Anh)

13h30-13h45 Judicial transparency– Some Issues in Vietnam in the age of changes
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Chi 
13h45-14h00 Open access in the ownership regime and its prospects in Vietnam

PhD Candidate Nguyen Quang Duc 
14h00-14h20 Good Governance in the Modern World

Dr. Fiona Donson; Dr. Lawrence Siry 
14h20-15h15 Discussions

15h15-15h20 Tea break

FOURTH SESSION:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OTHER ISSUES OF LEGAL SCIENCE

IN A CHANGING WORLD

(Assoc. Prof.Dr. Chu Hồng Thanh; Prof. Bard Andreassen)

15h20-15h40 Business' Duties Across Borders: The New Human Rights Frontier
Prof. Bard Andreassen 
15h40-15h55 Civil Procedure law in the Digital age

Dr. Nguyen Bich Thao 
15h55-16h10 Legal Aid as a Crucial Means of Access to Justice in Modern

Times: The Case of Vietnam

Assoc. Prof.Dr. Vũ Công Giao; PhD Candidate Hoang Bich Ngoc 
16h10-16h45 Discussions

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

KHOA LUẬT

DANH SÁCH BÀI VIẾT THAM DỰ HỘI THẢO QUỐC TẾ

“LUẬT HỌC TRƢỚC BIỂN ĐỔI CỦA THỜI ĐẠI”

(LAWS IN A CHANGING WORLD)

1. INDUSTRY 4.0: THE IMPACTS OF INDUSTRY 4.0 AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD
RESPOND TO IT

Prof. Dr. Geng-Schenq Lin 
Dean of the College of Law, Tunghai University

CHANG, Justin 
Mekkem industrial inc 
2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AI AND LAW IN TAIWAN - FOCUS ON AUTONOMOUS CAR
LIABILITY

Prof. Dr. JSENG Pin-Chieh 
Professor, Department of Financial and Economic Law, 
College of Law, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan; 
3. BUSINESS' DUTIES ACROSS BORDERS: THE NEW HUMAN RIGHTS FRONTIER

Prof. Bard Andreassen 
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. 
4. GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE MODERN WORLD

Dr. Fiona Donson; Dr. Lawrence Siry, 
University College Cork, Ireland 
5. Đưa cuộc sống vào pháp luật và đưa pháp luật vào cuộc sống – câu chuyện về soạn thảo
pháp luật và thi hành pháp luật ở Việt Nam

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Hoàng Anh 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
6. Tính tương xứng của tự do ngôn luận và quyền được lãng quên trong thời đại số: pháp luật
và thực tiễn (FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN: The counter 
balance in law and practice)

Dr. Ngô Minh Hương 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
7. Nhà nước pháp quyền ở Việt Nam – những giá trị cốt lõi và những khía cạnh tiếp cận mới
(THE RULE OF LAW IN VIETNAM –CORE VALUES AND NEW ASPECTS OF
APPROACH)

Prof. Dr. Đào Trí Úc 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
8. Pháp luật tố tụng dân sự trong kỷ nguyên số (CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW IN THE DIGITAL AGE)

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

9. Pháp luật quyền con người quốc tế về gia đình – nhìn từ quá khứ và hàm ý chính sách, pháp
luật với Việt Nam trong thế giới đang đổi thay (INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
ON THE FAMILY – LOOKING FROM THE PAST AND POLICY AND LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR VIETNAM IN A CHANGING WORLD)

Vũ Ngọc Bình 
Viện Dân số, Gia đình và Trẻ em 
10. Minh bạch tư pháp – những vấn đề nghiên cứu đặt ra ở Việt Nam trước biến đối của thời
đại (JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY IN VIET NAM- THE RESEARCH GAP TO BE
FURTHER STUDIED IN THE AGE OF CHANGE)

Assoc Prof. Dr Nguyễn Ngọc Chí 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
11. Luật Hiến pháp trong thời kỳ đổi mới ở Việt Nam (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE
RENOVATION PERIOD IN VIETNAM)

Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Đăng Dung 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
12. Hoàn thiện pháp luật sở hữu trí tuệ và pháp luật cạnh tranh của Việt Nam trước sự biến
đổi của thời đại (PERFECTIONIZING LAW ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
LAW ON COMPETITION OF VIETNAM IN THE CHANGING WORLD)

Dr. Phan Quốc Nguyên 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
13. Một số tác động của những biến đổi trong thời đại mới đối với pháp luật lao động Việt

Nam và kiến nghị giải pháp (SOME EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN CONTEXT ON
VIETNAMESE REGULATIONS ON LABOUR AND PROPOSALS)

Dr. Nguyễn Lê Thu 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
14. Quyền con người và pháp luật trong thời đại trí tuệ nhân tạo (HUMAN RIGHTS AND
LAW IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Đặng Minh Tuấn 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
15. Những thách thức tự do và an ninh cá nhân trong xã hội hiện đại (CHALLENGES ON
PERSONAL FREEDOM AND SECURITY IN MODERN SOCIETY)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chu Hồng Thanh 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi- School of Law 
16. Quyền riêng tư trong thời đại kỹ thuật số: Liên hệ với bối cảnh Việt Nam (THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY IN DIGITAL AGE: REFLECTION ON THE VIETNAMESE CONTEXT)

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

THE IMPACTS OF INDUSTRY 4.0 ON THE LAW AND HOW CAN WE

RESPOND TO IT - FOCUSING ON THE EMPLOYMENT LAW-

LIN, Geng-Schenq
CHANG, Justin

I. Introduction

II. Who is “employee” 
III. Working time

IV. Workers’ participation 
V. Strike

I. Introduction

Industry 4.0 (―Industrie 4.0‖ ) is officially proposed by the German government in 2011
which is part of the High Tech 2020 Strategy of German government. It focuses on promoting
digital manufacturing forward by increasing digitization and reciprocally connecting with products,
value chain and business models. Besides, it supplies with integrating cyber physical systems (CPS)
and Internet of Things and Services (IoTS) with enhancing productivity and efficiency.

According to the study of the University of St. Gallen on the project ―Shareground
Arbeit 4.0‖1,

--there are two major drivers for change:
a) Machines learn to think

b) Intelligent machines become omnipresent

--Rigid organizations will dissolve. In addition to digitalization, globalization of
enterprises, flexibilization of their organizational forms are to be expected. A massive
transformation to be expected, another form of leadership and communication will be created.
Industrial robots are used in Japan, North America and China, especially in the automotive
sector. Machines will communicate with one another directly and also with workpieces. In the
digital network economy, machines become colleagues, cooperation partners and inspectors.
Key qualifications of human digital work are the ability to read, combine and interpret data
streams. Creativity and mastery of machines should remain with humans. Mobility should
make it possible to work without borders. Work and private life will become blurred.

The following phenomena and many others are emerging in Taiwan:

--MAYO Human Capital (Taiwan)2 introduces an AI-based Video Interview Tool
―Lasso AI Video Interview‖

--Wistron Medical (Taiwan) cooperate with B-Temia Inc (Canada) to introduce a
smart external powered exoskeleton robot ―Keeogo‖3



Prof. Dr. Tunghai University, Taiwan



Mekkem industrial inc.（bicycle parts and metal processing consulting company) supply chain management

file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/dl-150902-studie-st-gallen%20(2).pdf(2019.08.07)

2 
3

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

--Foxconn will replace 80% of workers with robots within 5 years4. Foxconn: an
unmanned factory can even operate on the moon5.

This may have its bright side: e.g. the causes of discrimination (by interview) can be
minimalized, the employee can have a more safe and healthy work environment, the
enhancement of the efficiency of work, the evaluation of performance can be more objective
and creation of new jobs. But it may also result in mass unemployment, necessitating the
(re)training of employee, the employer‘s supervision and control over the employees will be
strengthened and leads to ―sweatshop‖6.

To the impacts of Industry 4.0 upon law or especially labor law, we lack an
authoritative study on this issue7.

On the other hand the discussion of German Law Scholars can be noteworthy. 2016 in
Essen, Germany, The employment and social law department of the 71. German Lawyers'
Conference (Deutsche Juristentag) in Essen has dealt with the topic "Digitalization of the world of
work - challenges and regulation needs" (Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt – Herausforderungen
und Regelungsbedarf). The focus was on new forms of work organization and distribution of
working hours as well as the effects of digitization on the place of work as well as questions
of further education and data protection.

The following resolutions are passed. These may reflect what problems the labor law
has to face in the near future from the viewpoint of German lawyers. The five major
recommendations are

In regard to employment law

1. Concerning the crowdworker

-- Self-employed crowdworkers should only refer to those who are economically
independent. To protect the crowdworkers, a reversal of the burden of proof is required (I. 1).

-- Crowdworkers shall enjoy the minimum protection by law.

Even independent crowdworkers shall require the minimum legal protection, for example
for remuneration, work recovery, occupational safety and contract termination (I. 2 a).

--All self-employed crowdworkers should be included in Social Welfare Act (SGB) (I. 3).
--Employee-like persons should be included in the application of Wok Council Act
(BetrVG) (I. 4).

2. Concerning the Working time

--The working time law should remain untouched for reasons to protect workers health
and safety. Working hours for ICT-supported work outside the company and in the home
office are documented (II. 1).

--§ 9 Federal Holiday Law (BUrlG) should be supplemented by the following sentence:
"Sentence 1 applies mutatis mutandis, if the employee performs at the instigation of the
employer, not only a minor work during the holiday." (II. 2)

4 
5

Insider exposure Foxconn factory: Workers are Overworked and Burnout,

Evil boss 4ni? Amazon again: ―sweatshop‖ ?

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

--The employee should have the right to determine the timing of working hours,
provided that there are no urgent operational reasons (II. 3).

--An ordinance in the meaning of § 18 of the Safety and Health Protection of Workers
at Work (ArbSchG), which deals with the topic of mental stress at work, shall be
implemented(II. 4).

3. Concerning the place of work

--In the case of mobile work, a right to a "home office" should be introduced, provided
that there are no operational reasons (III. 1).

--The regulations of workplace law should be extended to domestic workplaces set up
by the employer. The employer should be granted access and control rights in accordance
with Art. 13 Basic Law (GG) (III. 2).

4. Concerning the Training

The subject of "training of employees" should be comprehensively regulated by a
federal law.

--A counseling entitlement to qualification by the employer, carried out by an independent
person, is to be provided for all employees (IV. a).

-- In the case of job-related qualification, the employee should be paid and exempted
from work, with continued pay. For further training measures, pay continuation and the

financing of the training measure must be regulated in a graduated manner, depending on the
relation of the training measure to the company or activity. A compensation for remuneration
losses is to be provided (IV. b).

5. Concerning the Privacy protection

The law of employee data protection shall comprehensively be revised (V. 1).
In regard to the law of labor relation

--The rights of workers‘ participation have to be expanded and improved (IV c).
The right of co-determination shall extend to non-automated data processing (V 2). In
case of changes of workplaces, the work process or the work environment, the rights of workers‘
participation should be strengthened (I 6). The deregulation of the Works Constitution Act should
allow the collective agreements (TV) to create additional employee representation bodies (I 5).
In the case of elections to the workers representation, an additional notice by means of
information and communication technology (ICT) shall be required (I 7).

--The unions need access and communication rights on an electronic basis, such as the
use of the company intranet and the mailing list of the employees (I 2 b).

In light of the said resolutions of the 71. German Lawyers' Conference, and from a
labor law scholar‘s viewpoint, some important issues of Labor law will be selected and
discussed in the following.

II. Who is“employee” 
1. The definition “employee”

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

1.1. Taiwan

According the authoritative Interpretation No 740 of Judicial Yuan in 20178- it relates
to the question: whether a service contract for the solicitation of insurance business between
an insurance solicitor and the insurance company to which the solicitor belongs is a labor
contract under Article 2 Sub-paragraph 6 of the Labor Standards Act-, the Judicial Yuan rules
that the recognition of employment contract shall depend on

(1) whether the service debtor may freely decide the manner of the provision of
service (including working hours), and

(2) whether the service debtor will bear business risks on his own account (for
example, the remuneration shall be calculated on the basis of insurance premium received
from the solicited insurance).

This Interpretation is followed by The Supreme Court of Taiwan9, The Supreme
Administrative Court of Taiwan10.

1.2 A comparative viewpoint 
1.2.1. EU

For protecting the person who provides services, according to the EU law, the concept
―worker‖ shall be interpreted broadly. ―The essential feature of an employment relationship,
however, is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the
direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.‖11

1.2.2. Germany

Attempting to enhance the clarity of the legal status and accurately reflect the current
legal state in a 1:1 manner („1:1 – Kodifizierung "), the German legislator amends a new section
of the German Civil Code(BGB), section 611a, which came into effect on April 1, 2017. Pursuant

to the said section the employee shall meet the following conditions: to provide services in the
way of (1) direction-bounded (weisungsgebundenen), (2) other-directed (fremdbestimmt) and (3)
personal dependence (persönlicher Abhängigkeit). Shortly thereafter the Federal Labor Court
rules12: The teacher of a music school is not employee, because in a wide range he can decide
unilaterally the time of class, the subject of the courses, the type and manner of incidental
activities, and receive no instructions from the music school.

Comparing the EU and German Law, the concept of ―worker‖ under EU law is
broader than the ―employee‖ under German law. So e.g. a member of the board of directors of
a capital company and trainees13, a public servant (in this case: fireman)14and a member of a
nonprofit association (in this case: a nurse of the Federation of associations of nurses of the

A detailed discussion of this Interpretation, see Lin, On the Definition of employee, Taiwan Law Journal, 2019/02, p 155 ff.

The Supreme Court of Taiwan in 2017 Taishang Tzi No 301 Civil Judgement.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Taiwan in 2017 Pang Tzi No 233 Judgement

11 EuGH Urteil 03.07.1986 - 66/85, Rn 16-17, BeckRS 2004, 73510. See also EuGH Urteil 19.7.2017 – C-143/16

(Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl / Antonio Bordonaro), NZA 2017, 1247.

BAG Urt. v. 27.6.2017 – 9 AZR 851/16, NZA 2017, 1463.

Concerning the Directive 98/59/EC, EuGH Urteil 9.7.2015 – C-229/14 (Balkaya/Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik),
NZA 2015, 861.

</div>
(13)<div class='page_container' data-page=13>

German Red Cross)15are treated as a ―worker‖ within the meaning of EU law, but they shall
fall outside the scope of ―employee‖ according to the German law.

2. Industry 4.0 and the scope of ―employee‖

The above-mentioned – especially according to the German and Taiwan law– criteria
for determining the scope of ―employee‖ offer a relatively stable standard. However, this is
based on the employee/independent contractor dichotomy. Faced with the working relations
brought about by new technologies and new business models (such as crowd work/platform
work), the above-mentioned dichotomy may not be properly addressed; many service
provider may fall outside the protection of labor law unsatisfactory. To the persons who are
economical dependent and social vulnerable like an typical employee (employee-like persons,
―arbeitnehmer-ähnliche Person‖), the German law give them not only protections under the
social welfare law(§ 138 SGB IX 2001/§ 221 SGB IX 2018), and also under some regulations
of the labor codes such as the paid annual leave(§ 2 BUrlG), company pension(BetrAVG),
personal information protection, safety and health protection(§ 2 II Nr. 3 ArbSchG),
protection against discrimination, and the use of labor court proceedings(§ 5 ArbGG). De lege

lata, or at least de lege ferenda16, to protect (some) services provider via platform by
characterizing them as ―employee-like persons‖ (the German model) or ―worker‖ (the EU
model) and granting them some protections under labor law regulations would be a balanced
and pragmatical solution.

Another possible way is to characterize the service provider via platform as employee.
But if this is persuasive, depends on the specific circumstances of the case. For example,
concerning the case about UBER: UBER Systems Spain and Uber France SAS17 all are
classified by ECJ as providing ‗service in the field of transport‘, not relating to one or more
information society services. Inferred from this the UBER drivers in Spain and France may be
treated as the employees of UBER.

III. Working time

1. The definition of “Working time”

1.1. Taiwan

According to the prevailing opinion18 among scholars and case law in Taiwan19, the
working hours include not only the time when the workers actually provide services, but also
the time when the workers are under the employers‘ direction and supervision, and always be
ready to provide services. With regard to the ―on call‖ time, during this period of time a
worker has to stay in the dormitory or place designated by the employer especial at night or

Concerning the Directive 2008/104, EuGH Urteil 17.11.2016–C-216/15 (Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik/Ruhrlandklinik)
EuZW 2017, 68.

According to Brose,Von Bismarck zu Crowdwork: Über die Reichweite der Sozialversicherungspflicht in der digitalen
Arbeitswelt, NZS 2017, 7, 10 ff. the case of crowdworker is in general not within the meaning of the ―dependent
worker‖ (―abhängig Beschäftigten‖) of section 7 (1) SGB IV so they can not enjoy the benefits and protections of the
social welfare code IV(SGB IV).

EuGH Urteil 10.4.2018 – C-320/16 (Frankreich/Uber France SAS), EuZW 2018, 378.

18 Chiu in Taiwan Labor Law Association, Labor standard Act, A Commentary, 2009, p 361 ff. 
19

</div>
(14)<div class='page_container' data-page=14>

on holidays; he can eat, drink and sleep freely, has no need to handle daily work, but only to
deal with urgent matters. Unless the employer actually afford the services, otherwise this
inactive period of time is entirely not working time20. But if during the ―on call‖ time an
employee has to provide services with almost the same intensity and frequency, then this
period of time is entirely the working time21.

1.2. A comparative viewpoint

To protect workers‘ health and safety at the EU level, 93/104/EG Working Time
Directive and 2003/88/EC Working Time Directive are issued.

For the working time regulated in Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the ECJ22 rules that the
―directive defines working time as any period during which the worker is working, at the

employer's disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws
and/or practice. Moreover, in the scheme of the directive, it is placed in opposition to rest
periods, the two being mutually exclusive.‖(paragraph 47). And the ―time spent on call by
doctors in primary health care teams must be regarded in its entirety as working time, and
where appropriate as overtime, within the meaning of Directive 93/104 if they are required to
be present at the health centre. If they must merely be contactable at all times when on call,
only time linked to the actual provision of primary care services must be regarded as working
time‖ (paragraph 52).

For hours of night work on call in a 'watch' room by teachers in medico-social
establishments, according to the French Law, each period of night duty on call is counted as
three hours of actual work for the first nine hours and half an hour for each hour in excess of
nine hours. According the ECJ case law23, such a system of equivalence to statutory working
time is incompatible with the aims of Directive 93/104.

However, the Directives 93/104 does not apply to the remuneration of workers. The
said Directives -and Directives 2003/88 also- does not prevent a ―Member State from
applying legislation on the remuneration of workers and concerning on-call duties performed
by them at the workplace which makes a distinction between the treatment of periods in the
course of which work is actually done and those during which no actual work is done,
provided that such a system wholly guarantees the practical effect of the rights conferred on
workers by the said directives in order to ensure the effective protection of their health and
safety.‖24

However if the employee is required after the requirement in a very short time
period to reach his place of work, which means very significantly restricting the employee‘s
opportunities for other activities, such a stand-by time must be regarded as ‗working time‘. So

The Taiwan Supreme Court, 2015 Taishang Tzi No 2505.

21 The Taiwan Supreme Court 2017 Taishang Tzi No 824, 1221 and 2533. 
22

EuGH 03.10.2000 - Rs C 303/98 Simap, in AP Nr. 2 zu EWG-Richtlinie Nr. 93/104. See also EuGH 9. 9. 2003 - Rs.
C-151/02, Jaeger, NZA 2003, 1019.

EuGH Urteil vom 1. 12. 2005 - C-14/04, Dellas, NZA 2006, 89.

24 EuGH 11. 01. 2007- C-437/05, Vorel. 2019.08.07,

</div>
(15)<div class='page_container' data-page=15>

the ―stand-by‖ time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his
employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities,
must be regarded as ‗working time‘.‖25

According to the German Law26 it is distinguished between (1) the working time with
regard to the consideration of remunerations, and (2) the working time under the viewpoint of
labor protection. To the former, remunerations can be freely negotiated (Article 612 of the
German Civil Code); the latter, when at a certain time, the labor is usually unable to obtain
adequate rest, may be considered as working hours.

The period of time for the services to be provided or prepare to be provided by the
employee under the supervision of the employer is the working time (including

Vollarbeitszeit and Arbeitsbereitschaft). Under the influence of EU case law, the ―on call‖
time (Bereitschaftdienst), which was originally regarded as not working time-unless the
employee actually provides services-, is now entirely recognized as the working time under
Labor Time Act (ArbZG). Yet lower wages for the―on call‖ time are still possible.

In regard to the ―stand by‖ time, during this period of time the employee is required to
stay at home or at a location of his own choosing and after the employers‘ requirement to
reach his place of work. To characterize the ―stand by‖ time, the length of time between the
employers‘ requirement and the employee to reach the place of work (Wegezeit) is decisive.
According the case law, if the employer asks the worker to arrive the place of work within 10
minutes27 or 20 minutes28 after the requirement, so that the employee is usually unable to
obtain adequate rest nor freely to engage in social/family activities, this period of time is
regarded in its entirety as ―on call‖ time. Otherwise -e. g within 45 minutes of the requirement
to arrive in the place of work- the ―stand by‖ time is regularly not working time.

2. Industry 4.0 and working time

If after the work time the employee can choose where he wants to stay and what he
wants to do, but he must keep accessible for the employer through Handy or Internet so that
he can answer the questions of the employer or customers (―ständige Erreichbarkeit‖), this
period of time may be evaluated as ―stand by‖ time29

. Another question is, if the employee e.g.
answers a question of the employer or customers during the said ―stand by‖ time, shall this breaks
the requirement ―the eleven consecutive hours of rest period‖ (Art. 3 RL 2003/88/EG, § 5 ArbZG
Germany), so that the rest period must be computed again? Although it is controversial among the
German scholars30, based on the consideration of the principle of proportionality, the negative
answer seems to be preferred.

By Industry 4.0 and also the request of work-life balance a more flexible working time

system shall be beneficial to the employee (e.g. to meet the different needs of different stages

25 EuGH 21.2.2018–C-518/15, Matzak, 2019.08.07, 
26

Vgl. Baeck/Deutsch, 3. Aufl. 2014, ArbZG § 2 Rn. 41-47.

BAG 19.12.1991.

BAG 31.01.2002, zu B I 2 der Gründe.

29 Krause, Herausforderung Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt und Arbeit 4.0, NZA Beilage 2017, 53, 56. 
30

</div>
(16)<div class='page_container' data-page=16>

of life) and employer (e.g. to meet the needs of customers). But at the other hand, how to
protect the employee from almost endlessly available for the employer and/or customers and
lead to burn, is a serious question. Resolved through worker‘s participation seems pragmatical.
The German BMW Motor Company had reached an agreement with the labor representative
to prohibit employers from calling the workers after work. Daimler Company stipulates that
emails sent during the off-hours will be automatically cleared31.

IV. Workers’ participation 
1. Taiwan

According to the Regulations for Implementing Labor-Management Meeting, there are
three levels of workers‘ participations; by the Labor-Management Meeting, the representatives
of employees have the right to be reported, to discuss and suggest. The right to co-determination
is not stipulated. Subjects about the labor conditions and the enhancement of work efficiency shall
be discussed (sec. 13 II 2 Regulations for Implementing Labor-Management Meeting), matters
concerning the improvement of labor conditions, employee welfare and work environment shall
be reported (sec. 13 I 4 Regulations for Implementing Labor-Management Meeting). Therefore
by Industry 4.0 if the employer introduces new type of machines or improving methods of
production, the representatives of employees has the right to be reported and to discuss.
However, when an employer violates the above provisions, the legal effects are not expressly
regulated. So the Regulations seem more to be persuasive.

2. Germany

Pursuant to sec. 81 ff Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) the representative of the
employee has four levels of participations: the right of information, discussion, suggestion
and co-determination. For example by introducing new machines and technologies, if the
employer and the works council reach an agreement to reconcile their interests in connection
with the proposed alterations, the said agreement(the social compensation plan) shall be
recorded in writing and signed by the employer and the works council. If no agreement is
reached, the employer or the works council may apply to the Executive Board of the Federal
Employment Agency for mediation. If mediation is not applied for or the attempt at mediation
is unsuccessful, the employer or the works council may submit the case to the conciliation
committee. If no agreement is reached on the social compensation plan, the conciliation
committee shall make a decision on the drawing up of a social compensation plan. The award
of the conciliation committee shall take the place of an agreement between the employer and
the works council. (sec. 112 f BetrVG). Generally speaking, by co-determinations the works
councils increasingly assume the role of co-managers or even co-innovators32 and in this

Ständige Erreichbarkeit: Neue Diskussion entbrannt, 2019.08.07,

32 Huchler: Mitbestimmung 4.0: Innovation durch Partizipation und basisdemokratische Prozesse im Betrieb?, NZA-Beilage

</div>
(17)<div class='page_container' data-page=17>

respect the decision-making process is no longer the prerogative of management33. Therefore
by Industry 4.0 if the employer introduces new type of machines, improving methods of
production or concerning its negative influences upon the employee, the works council hat the
right to co-determination.

V. Strike 
1. Taiwan

Concerning the legality of the strike, it must be distinguished the economic strike from the
unfair labor practice strike. According to sec. 53 I Act for Settlement of Labor-Management
Disputes the legitimate appeals of economic strike are restricted to interest disputes, which denote
to the disputes between employers and workers with respect to maintaining or changing the terms
and conditions of employment(sec. 5 No 3 Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes).
One of the prerequisites of the unfair labor practice strike is that the employer commits unfair
labor practices (in violation of sec 35 of the Labor Union Act or Article 6 of the Collective
Agreement Act).

Related to the legitimate appeals of economic strike, it is unanimously accepted that
the legitimate subjects of economic strike are limited to the ones of collective bargaining

(―Tarifbezogenheit‖). Based on the idea of collective agreement autonomy (―Tarifvertragsautonomie‖)
sec. 12 I Collective Agreement Act stipulates a very broad scope of the subjects of collective
bargaining. Thus the scope of the legitimate appeals of strike seems to see no limitation. Here
threatens a boundless strike. So it is not surprising that a limitation of the subjects of
economic strike to the mandatory subjects and an exclusion of permissive and illegal subjects,
a doctrine which is generally accepted in US law, is recently propose by a scholar34. Will this
theory be accepted in Taiwan, remains to be seen.

By introducing new types of machines or improving methods of production, sec.15
Collective Agreement Act stipulates ―It shall not be agreed upon in a collective agreement to restrict
an employer from using new type of machines, improving methods of production, or purchasing
manufactured or processed goods.‖ Accordingly, an appeal of strike against introducing new types
of machines or improving methods of production by Industry 4.0 is per se illegal.

2. A comparative viewpoint

Under the German law strikes are seen as a means of reaching collective bargaining, the
legitimate subjects of strike are limited to the ones of collective bargaining (―Tarifbezogenheit‖)35

.
However, if the distinction is to be made between what can be negotiated voluntarily and what
can be achieved through strike, is controversial among scholars36. According to the Federal Labor

Klebe/Weiss, WORKERS' PARTICIPATION 4.0 - DIGITAL AND GLOBAL? 40 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J, 263, 272.

34 Lin, On the legality of strike, 
35

Gamillscheg, Kollektives Arbeitsrecht, Band I, 1997, S. 1071; ErfK/Linsenmaier, 18. Aufl. 2018, GG Art. 9 Rn. 69,
114(j.m.w.N.)

</div>
(18)<div class='page_container' data-page=18>

Court case law,37 the collective bargaining autonomy can‘t mean that all entrepreneurial
decisions are legitimate subjects of collective bargaining and/or strike at the same time. The
industrial action/strike can only intervene where an entrepreneurial decision affects those legal,
economic or social interests of the employees. Otherwise, the autonomy of the enterprise would
be insufficiently respected. So the employer can decide on investment, production and distribution,
how money and materials are used for what purpose and whether what and where is produced. So
is a strike against the employer‘s business decision-making itself (e.g. to set up a new flight
company aboard) is illegal38. On the other hand, a strike only for the extension of the notice
period of the dismissal caused by the employer's relocation (―Standortverlagerung‖) and the
vocational training subsidy during the unemployment period is legal39.

In UK the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, sec. 178

40defines the scope of ―collective bargaining‖ –and at the same time also the scope of the

protected industrial actions-. It seems that the scope of the legitimate appeals of strike in UK
subjects to more restrictions as her German counterpart. A strike due to the employer‘s
business decision-making violates TULRCA 1992, sec. 178 and is illegal. However, a strike
relates to terms and conditions of employment, or allocation of work or the duties of
employment which derives from e.g. the outsourcing may be legal.

Therefore under German and UK law, if the employer introduces new type of

machines or improving methods of production by Industry 4.0, the labor union may not strike
against such a business decision-making itself. However, a strike relates to terms and
conditions of employment, or allocation of work or the duties of employment which derives
from e.g. the outsourcing may be legal.

BAG Urteil vom 03.04.1990 - 1 AZR 123/89, NZA 1990, 886.

LAG Hamm Urteil 5. 31. 2000 AP GG Art. 9 Arbeitskampf Nr. 158; LAG Hessen, Urteil 9. 9.2015, NZA 2015, 1337.

BAG Urteil vom 24.4.2007 – 1 AZR 252/06 – NZA 2007,987.

TULRCA 1992, sec. 178

(1) In this Act ―collective agreement‖ means any agreement or arrangement made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions
and one or more employers or employers‘ associations and relating to one or more of the matters specified below; and
―collective bargaining‖ means negotiations relating to or connected with one or more of those matters.

(2) The matters referred to above are—

(a) terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;

(b) engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or
more workers;

(e) a worker‘s membership or non-membership of a trade union;
(f) facilities for officials of trade unions; and

</div>


What is the neutral real interest rate, and how can we use it? doc