Boards Cannot Look Only at Yield Rates; They Must Also Look at Bullying Risks: A New Occupational Safety and Health Law Issue Every AI Supply Chain Governance Leader Must Understand

Jensen Huang once said, “AI is not a nuclear bomb. It will not destroy all jobs.”

However, I would like to offer this reminder: ignoring the new workplace bullying law under labor legislation, which is about to take effect, may well unleash nuclear-level consequences.

Once workplace bullying formally becomes a governance issue under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it is no longer merely an HR complaint matter. It becomes a corporate governance risk that the board of directors must face directly. For global technology companies in the AI supply chain, the real challenge is not whether a system exists, but whether that system can withstand the practical tests of managerial authority, cross-border management, high-pressure performance demands, and social media whistleblowing.

For training inquiries, please contact YesInLaw Office: 02-25156822Official website: https://www.yesinlaw.com.tw/

Keywords: Workplace Bullying / Corporate Governance / Occupational Safety and Health Act / Abuse of Power / Performance Improvement Plan / HR Compliance / Highest Responsible Person Clause / Director Liability / Serious Circumstances Exception / Business Management / External Experts / Complaint Investigation

1. Workplace Bullying Is Not Merely an Emotional Issue; It Is a Board-Level Compliance Risk

The amended Occupational Safety and Health Act incorporates workplace bullying into the legal framework. The core issue is whether personnel of a business entity use their position or authority to engage in improper words or conduct that exceeds the necessary and reasonable scope of work, thereby causing harm to a worker’s physical or mental health.

The technology industry emphasizes speed, discipline, and results. Strict management is not, in itself, unlawful. However, when management methods evolve into public humiliation, isolation, malicious obstruction, or psychological pressure, performance management may slide into legal liability.

The board should require the management team to explain how the company defines the boundary between high-standard management and abuse of power.

2. A PIP Is Not a Shield from Liability; It May Instead Become Evidence

If properly designed, a Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP, can help an employee return to a reasonable level of performance. However, if the goals are unreasonable, resources are not provided, the improvement period is insufficient, or the supervisor has already decided to force the employee out and merely uses the PIP to package the process, the legal risk will increase rapidly.

For corporate governance officers and HR leaders, a PIP must pass three tests: Are the business and work performance goals specific and measurable? Are sufficient resources provided? Is the process fair?

Otherwise, while the company may believe it is managing performance, it may in fact be creating evidence for future complaints, litigation, and media crises.

3. The Highest Responsible Person Clause Allows Bullying Complaints to Go Directly to the Authorities

The risk most worthy of the board’s attention under the new workplace bullying regime is the risk involving the company’s highest responsible person.

If the alleged perpetrator is the company’s highest responsible person, the worker may not be required to first go through the company’s internal complaint procedure. Instead, the worker may file a complaint directly with the local competent authority.

This means the company can no longer expect all disputes to be digested internally first. If the chairperson, or a person who substantially controls important personnel and operational decisions, crosses the boundary of reasonable management through improper words or conduct, that individual may face personal administrative fines and an external investigation.

This is not a case that HR can bear alone. It is a governance event at the board level.

4. A Single Serious Act of Humiliation May Cross the Legal Line

In the past, many people mistakenly believed that workplace bullying had to be long-term, repeated, and continuous. However, the direction of the amendment has clearly emphasized that where the circumstances are serious, continuity is not required.

In other words, a single act of public humiliation, a single serious threat, or a single instance of using authority to degrade a person’s dignity in an important meeting may become a legal issue.

Technology industry supervisors often cite project pressure, customer deadlines, and yield requirements as reasons for emotional outbursts. But from the perspective of labor compliance, the real question is whether the management conduct was necessary, reasonable, proportionate, and free from infringement of personal dignity.

5. Enterprises with More Than 100 Employees Cannot Rely Solely on Internal Investigations to Justify Themselves

Large enterprises are legally required to establish written prevention plans, complaint channels, investigation procedures, and protective measures. For major AI supply chain companies, it is especially important to avoid the concern that “the player is also the referee.”

If an investigation committee lacks external experts, fails to observe conflict-of-interest rules, fails to give both parties an opportunity to be heard, or allows the same personnel to handle both the investigation and the appeal process, the procedure may be found to contain material defects.

The board should supervise the company in establishing a roster of external experts covering law, psychology, labor relations, and occupational safety and health, so that investigation results can command credibility.

6. Social Media Whistleblowing Is Not Only a Public Relations Issue; It May Also Trigger Legal Knowledge and Response Obligations

Anonymous social media whistleblowing is common in the technology industry, including posts on Dcard, Threads, PTT, or media reports. If a company treats such information merely as an online rumor and fails to initiate fact-finding, it may underestimate its legal obligations.

Even if the company has not yet received a formal complaint, once it becomes aware of a suspected workplace unlawful infringement, it should take necessary measures. These include preserving evidence, interviewing relevant personnel, adjusting workplace contact, providing psychological support, and preventing retaliation.

The first sentence in crisis management should not be, “We have not received a complaint.” It should be, “The company has initiated objective, concrete, and effective protective measures.”

7. What the Board Should Really Ask Is Whether the Labor Compliance System Has Been Implemented

Corporate governance officers and HR leaders should incorporate workplace bullying prevention into director training and regular board reporting. The board should at least monitor five indicators: the number and types of complaints, high-risk departments, average investigation time, the participation ratio of external experts, and post-complaint resignations or transfers.

If the board only reviews policy documents without reviewing execution data, governance remains governance on paper. International investors evaluate ESG not only by looking at carbon reduction, but also by examining how a company treats employees who endure high-pressure working conditions.

A Reminder from Attorney Chen Yeh-Hsin

When a Japanese magazine described TSMC’s Kumamoto investment as a second “Black Ship” opening of Japan, we should cherish even more the positive influence that the “sacred mountains” of Taiwan’s technology industry have brought to the country.

As Computex shines under the spotlight and the AI supply chain attracts global attention, the core assets of AI supply chain companies should not be limited to advanced manufacturing processes and customer trust. People must also be recognized as core assets.

Workplace bullying prevention is not intended to weaken managerial authority. Rather, it is intended to bring managerial authority back onto a lawful, reasonable, and professional track.

If the board can supervise the implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act from the height of corporate governance, the company will protect not only employee dignity, but also brand credibility, investor trust, and long-term competitiveness.