Companies With 100 or More Employees Should Take Note: The New Workplace Bullying Law Is Not Merely an HR Issue, but a Governance Test for Chairpersons and General Managers

“I heard that the special legislation on workplace bullying adopts a tiered management approach, and that companies with 100 or more employees will bear the most complicated prevention obligations and the heaviest responsibilities. Is that true?”

Over the weekend, at a dinner gathering, the chairperson of a listed company asked me this question with a serious expression.

Workplace bullying prevention is no longer merely a matter of poor internal communication or an individual case to be handled by the human resources department. As the new legislative direction for the “workplace bullying” chapter under the Occupational Safety and Health Act gradually takes shape, together with the draft Workplace Bullying Prevention Guidelines, large enterprises with 100 or more employees will face compliance requirements that are more intensive, more externally supervised, and more transparent.

For chairpersons, general managers, and human resources executives of companies with 100 or more employees, this is not a crisis to be handled only after a complaint is filed. Nor is it something to wait and observe until the new law takes effect on July 1. It is a governance project that must begin now, including reviewing systems, allocating resources, and clarifying responsibility among relevant personnel and departments.

For education and training services, please contact Yesinlaw Law Firm.Telephone: 02-25156822Official website: https://www.yesinlaw.com.tw/

Keywords: workplace bullying prevention, corporate compliance, prevention measures, complaint procedures, disciplinary measures, complaint channels, government registration, external experts, investigation committee, appeal mechanism, conflict-of-interest recusal, education and training, managerial responsibility, workplace safety, corporate risk management, ESG, corporate governance, RBA.

1. First, Establish and Publicly Announce Written Rules

Companies with 100 or more employees should promptly establish written “Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures, Complaint Procedures, and Disciplinary Rules.” They should also designate a responsible unit to coordinate and handle the following matters:

1. Types of workplace bullying conduct and corresponding preventive measures.

2. Education and training for workplace bullying prevention.

3. Procedures for complaint filing, investigation, handling, and appeal of workplace bullying cases, as well as the designation of responsible personnel.

4. Qualifications of investigators, composition of the investigation committee, and matters concerning conflict-of-interest recusal.

5. Handling complaints in a non-public manner, and ensuring that complainants and persons assisting with complaints are protected from retaliation or any other unfavorable treatment.

6. Disciplinary or corrective measures against perpetrators where the investigation confirms the misconduct.

7. Disciplinary or corrective measures where the investigation confirms that the complainant maliciously fabricated facts.

8. Where the respondent is the highest-ranking responsible person of the company, employees may file a complaint directly with the competent municipal, county, or city authority.

The above written rules should be clearly drafted and prominently displayed in the workplace. If a workplace bullying incident actually occurs, these written rules will help demonstrate to the competent authority that the company has fulfilled its preventive obligations.

2. Designate a Dedicated Responsible Unit

Workplace bullying cases often involve department supervisors, human resources, legal affairs, occupational safety and health personnel, and senior management. Without a clearly designated point of contact, the company may easily fall into a governance gap where “everyone knows about the issue, but no one is responsible.”

Large enterprises should designate a dedicated unit to coordinate prevention, education, complaints, investigations, disciplinary measures, and follow-up improvements. They should also establish a cross-department response mechanism so that, once a case is received, the company can immediately classify the case, determine whether to accept it, initiate an investigation, and activate the appropriate procedures.

A dedicated responsible unit is therefore an important part of corporate governance.

3. Complaint Channels Must Be Diversified

Companies should establish and publicly disclose multiple complaint channels, such as an email address, telephone hotline, fax number, dedicated mailbox, or designated communication software.

A truly qualified complaint system is not merely a “mailbox.” Employees must know whom to contact, who will handle the complaint after it is filed, how long it will take to receive a response, and how secondary harm will be prevented.

In the future, when a company accepts a complaint and there is no statutory reason not to accept it, the company must register the case on the website designated by the competent authority within seven days from the day after acceptance, and must notify the complainant. The result of the case closure must also be registered.

This means that workplace bullying cases will no longer be purely internal management issues. They will become labor compliance matters subject to external regulatory oversight.

4. The Investigation Mechanism Will Become More Externalized

To avoid the problem of “the player also acting as the referee,” after the dedicated unit accepts a complaint, it should in principle form an investigation committee within seven days.

The investigation committee should have at least three members. External professionals should account for no less than one-half of the committee members, and members of either gender should account for no less than one-third.

Internal investigation members should also receive at least three hours of workplace bullying prevention training.

This is an important reminder for companies: in the future, the quality of workplace bullying investigations will be a key factor for competent authorities when examining whether a company has fulfilled its obligations.

5. The Appeal Mechanism Is Stricter Than the Investigation Mechanism

If a party disagrees with the investigation decision and files an appeal, the company must form an appeal review committee within seven days after receiving the appeal.

The appeal review committee should have at least three members. External professionals should account for no less than two-thirds of the committee members, and members of either gender should account for no less than one-third.

More importantly, members of the original investigation committee may not serve as members of the appeal review committee.

The core purpose of this design is to ensure that the appeal review, similar to an appellate review mechanism, has independence and credibility.

Companies should now begin establishing lists of external experts, engagement terms, and conflict-of-interest recusal mechanisms.

6. Education and Training Must Be Designed by Level

Employers should provide basic workplace bullying prevention training to all personnel, including employees, dispatched workers, managers, and the highest-ranking responsible person.

For supervisors at all levels, as well as personnel responsible for complaint handling, investigation, coordination, and appeal review, companies should provide advanced training on communication skills, management responsibility, fact-finding, evidence preservation, and complaint case handling.

Corporate culture cannot be built merely through slogans. Education and training should not be reduced to a formal attendance sheet. The real question is whether supervisors can correctly handle workplace conflicts at the first possible moment.

7. Companies Must Establish a “Act Upon Knowledge” Crisis Response SOP

Whether the source is a formal complaint, an anonymous report, an online disclosure, or workplace rumors regarding a suspected bullying incident, once the employer or management becomes aware of a possible workplace bullying issue, the company should immediately clarify the facts.

Where necessary, the company should initiate investigation or coordination procedures and adopt appropriate separation or protective measures. Such measures may include adjusting work assignments, workplace locations, or reporting and supervisory relationships to prevent the complainant from being harmed again.

At the same time, based on the needs and willingness of the bullied employee, the company should provide legal consultation, medical support, psychological counseling, employee assistance program services, or other necessary protection.

Even if the employee is unwilling to file a formal complaint, the company cannot simply stand by and do nothing.

Attorney Chen Yehsin’s Reminder

For large enterprises with 100 or more employees, the core issue in workplace bullying prevention is not merely whether bullying has occurred. The more important questions are:

1. What statutory preventive measures did the company establish in advance?

2. What effective corrective and protective measures did the company take after becoming aware of the issue?

In the future, what will truly protect a company will not be a public relations statement. It will be institutional documents, education records, reporting trails, investigation quality, participation of external experts, and timely protective measures.

If chairpersons and general managers simply leave this matter to the human resources department alone, without providing substantive resources and support, they may be underestimating the workplace safety governance signal revealed by the new law.

The cost of non-compliance is not limited to administrative fines and monetary loss. The competent authority may publicly announce the company’s name, the responsible person’s name, and the details of the violation. This may affect ESG performance and corporate governance evaluation scores. It may also violate RBA 8.0 requirements concerning occupational safety and labor rights, thereby affecting the company’s position in the supply chain.

Decision-makers of large enterprises should treat this matter with great caution.