Seven Major Changes and a Complete Corporate Compliance Guide to the Ministry of Labor’s Finalized Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures

Since the Ministry of Labor released the draft Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention, discussions over the past two months have been intense. Many HR managers have been concerned about whether the strict timelines and ambiguous areas in the draft would become ticking time bombs in companies’ day-to-day operations.

The good news is that this afternoon, June 23, 2026, the Ministry of Labor officially finalized the regulation, and its title has been changed from the draft name, Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention, to the Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures.

The finalized version substantially incorporates feedback from practice. It makes concrete adjustments in operational flexibility, the reasonableness of handling timelines, and rules applicable to enterprises of different sizes.

For labor law compliance training, please contact Yesin Law Firm at 02-25156822. Official website: https://www.yesinlaw.com

Below, I have summarized the seven most important changes between the finalized provisions and the draft:

1. The regulatory title has been finalized, focusing on employers’ responsibilities and the implementation of corporate measures

The slight adjustment to the regulatory title reveals a shift in the core legislative spirit.

The title has been changed from the more abstract Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention to the Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures. This means the competent authority will focus on whether enterprises have established effective prevention measures and mechanisms.

For enterprises, the title clearly points to the direction of labor law compliance in relation to workplace bullying prevention. Employer responsibility is no longer an unlimited moral expectation. Instead, it must be translated into concrete institutional implementation. As long as a company establishes comprehensive complaint, investigation, and disciplinary measures in accordance with the law, it will be in a stronger position when facing labor-management disputes and labor inspections involving workplace bullying prevention measures.

2. Timelines have been comprehensively relaxed and now adopt a practical working-day calculation

The most troubling aspect of the draft for HR departments in many enterprises was that all deadlines were calculated by calendar days, including holidays.

The finalized provisions fully take into account the practical needs of corporate administrative operations. Deadlines have been comprehensively relaxed and clearly changed to a working-day calculation. The deadline for deciding whether to accept a complaint has been extended from within 10 days of receiving the complaint to within 10 working days. The deadline for reporting and registering the case in the system has been changed from within 7 days from the day after acceptance to within 7 working days. For enterprises with 100 or more employees, the deadline for forming an investigation committee has also been significantly extended from within 7 days after acceptance to within 15 working days from the date of accepting the complaint.

Even the deadlines for notifying the decision and registering the result have been uniformly adjusted to within 10 working days. This change gives HR personnel responsible for workplace bullying prevention a more realistic degree of administrative flexibility, so that they no longer have to work during holidays simply to comply with rigid statutory deadlines.

3. Case-closing deadlines are tiered according to enterprise size, allowing more precise corporate compliance

Under the draft, all enterprises were required to complete an investigation report within two months, regardless of size. This one-size-fits-all rule would undoubtedly have imposed a heavy burden on small and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources.

The finalized provisions now set clearer and different overall case-closing deadlines according to enterprise size. Enterprises with fewer than 30 employees must make a decision within 3 months from the day after receiving the complaint, with a possible extension of 1 month when necessary. Enterprises with 30 or more but fewer than 100 employees must make a decision within 4 months, also with a possible extension of 1 month when necessary. Enterprises with 100 or more employees must still complete the investigation report within 2 months from the day after the investigation committee is formed, with a possible extension of 1 month. The complaint-handling unit must then make a decision within 1 month after the report is completed.

This tiered system more accurately helps companies of different sizes implement corporate compliance.

4. Post-employment complaints are limited, and the problem of being unable to discipline a departed perpetrator is addressed

Regarding complaints filed after an employee has left the company, the draft originally provided that as long as the bullying occurred while the employee was still employed, the employee could file a complaint within one year after resignation.

The finalized provisions add a reasonable limitation: the one-year extended complaint period after resignation applies only where the respondent is a person who used power or authority. This effectively reduces the risk of abusive complaints by former employees.

More importantly, in practice, companies often encounter situations where the alleged perpetrator of workplace bullying has already resigned before the company can take disciplinary action. The finalized provisions specifically add a proviso to the employer’s disciplinary obligations, stating that where the perpetrator has already left employment, such disciplinary action is not required. This resolves the practical difficulty enterprises previously faced when they had no means to discipline a departed perpetrator.

5. “Place” is added as an element in determining workplace bullying, and the standard for calculating employee numbers is clarified

How should workplace bullying be determined?

In the finalized provisions, in addition to the original factors such as background, frequency, motive, and purpose, “place” has been specifically added as a factor to be comprehensively considered. This makes fact-finding more concrete and better suited to today’s multi-track work patterns.

In addition, the new rules clearly define the basis for calculating the number of employed workers as persons employed by a business unit to perform work and receive wages. Where an enterprise is distributed across different regions, employee numbers must be calculated separately.

This is crucial for enterprises with multiple branches, factories, or operating sites. The way employee numbers are divided will directly affect which level of statutory obligations the company must comply with.

6. The nine statutory duties of the complaint-handling unit are listed, and diversified training channels for investigators are provided

To give enterprises a clear operational framework, the finalized provisions set out nine specific statutory duties of the complaint-handling unit. These include accepting complaints, notifying results, registering cases in the system, conducting coordination, reviewing reports, and making disciplinary recommendations. This provides HR departments with a clear checklist when planning internal organizational arrangements.

At the same time, regarding the mandatory requirement that internal investigators complete 3 hours of training, the finalized provisions clearly state that such training may be completed by attending courses organized by the competent authority or by taking digital learning courses on the website established by the central competent authority. This significantly reduces the cost of labor law compliance training for enterprises.

7. Composite cases involving sexual harassment introduce the principle of avoiding repeated questioning

In corporate labor law compliance practice, workplace bullying cases may sometimes overlap with sexual harassment prevention matters, creating complex composite cases.

The draft originally provided only that the employer may handle such matters together, provided that doing so does not conflict with the regulations. The finalized provisions go further in strengthening victim protection. They expressly require employers, in accordance with the complainant’s wishes, to jointly conduct investigation interviews or clarify the facts regarding the matters involved, and to avoid repeated questioning so as to prevent secondary victimization.

From the enterprise’s perspective, this can also effectively integrate internal investigation resources and improve case-handling efficiency.

Attorney Chen Yeh-Shin’s Reminder

Although the Ministry of Labor’s newly promulgated Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures provide HR managers with greater administrative flexibility and more processing time through working-day calculations and adjusted deadlines, this does not mean enterprises can afford to take the matter lightly.

On the contrary, through future labor inspections, the competent authority is expected to more strictly examine whether companies have revised their internal rules in response to the new system.

HR colleagues responsible for workplace bullying prevention should immediately review the company’s employment contracts, employee codes of conduct, disciplinary rules, and Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures, Complaint, and Disciplinary Rules. They should also confirm the separate employee headcounts of each branch and factory, and verify whether internal investigators have completed the legally required training hours.

Only by planning early and putting the system in place can companies protect employee rights while properly resolving corporate legal risks.

With the new system about to take effect, has your company designated a dedicated workplace bullying prevention contact person? Has it already formulated and announced its Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures, Complaint, and Disciplinary Rules in accordance with the amended Occupational Safety and Health Act and its subsidiary regulations? Are the members of your investigation committee truly ready?