Law Articles
2026-07-24
Law Articles
The Fine Line Between Managerial Authority and Workplace Bullying ━ Five Red Lines Every Manager Must Avoid
【Zhong Yin Law Firm Partner Charlotte Wu / Attorney Dan Yang / Legal Intern Sophy Yao】
charlotte.wu@zhongyinlawyer.com.tw
charlotte.wu@zhongyinlawyer.com.tw
It is important to begin by recognizing a fundamental principle: requiring employees to meet performance standards, correcting mistakes, and reasonably assigning work are not only lawful exercises of managerial authority, but also essential responsibilities for maintaining team operations and promoting organizational development. The purpose of Taiwan’s new workplace bullying prevention regime is by no means to deprive managers of their legitimate managerial authority. Rather, the purpose is to guide enterprises in exercising such authority within a lawful and reasonable framework.
In our previous article, we provided an overview of the regulatory framework following the implementation of the new workplace bullying prevention regime. With the new regulations now in effect, employers and managers should not be overly concerned. The legal boundary is not determined by whether management is “strict,” but rather by whether the conduct and methods adopted exceed the reasonable limits expected in the performance of managerial duties. In other words, reasonable performance requirements serve as a driving force for organizational growth. However, where managerial measures are accompanied by personal humiliation unrelated to work, social exclusion, or deliberate obstruction and mistreatment, such conduct may cross the legal boundary.
In response to increasingly stringent compliance requirements, this article examines, from both practical and legal perspectives, the critical distinction between the legitimate exercise of managerial authority and workplace bullying.
I. How to Accurately Distinguish “Legitimate Management” from “Workplace Bullying”
The determination of whether a managerial act constitutes workplace bullying primarily depends on two key considerations: first, whether the conduct and methods adopted exceed what is reasonably necessary in the performance of managerial duties; and second, whether the conduct is directed at the employee personally rather than at the employee’s work performance 1.
First, the legitimacy of a managerial action should be assessed under the following three legal tests:
(1) Purpose Test
The purpose of the managerial action must be directed toward achieving legitimate organizational objectives, such as accomplishing team goals, improving overall performance, or maintaining workplace discipline. The managerial action should not be motivated by personal interests, retaliation, discrimination, or an intention to force an employee to resign.
(2) Means Test
The methods adopted by management must have a genuine and substantive necessity arising from the employee’s duties. If a manager intentionally assigns tasks that are clearly unrealistic, impossible to accomplish within the given timeframe, or significantly inconsistent with the employee’s professional capabilities, such management measures may be deemed unreasonable.
(3) Proportionality Test
Even where a manager has legitimate reasons to correct employee performance, the method adopted must remain proportionate. If a manager could reasonably adopt a professional and constructive supervisory approach but instead deliberately chooses humiliation, public criticism, or degrading treatment, such conduct may exceed the level of reasonable tolerance permitted under the law.
More fundamentally, the most straightforward distinction lies in whether the management focuses on work performance or attacks personal dignity. A legitimate exercise of managerial authority should focus on correcting an employee’s behavioral deficiencies and work results, with the purpose of helping the employee improve professional capability and performance. Once managerial words or conduct shift toward attacking an employee’s personal dignity, character, or value as an individual, the nature of such conduct may transform into an unlawful infringement prohibited under the new workplace bullying prevention regime.
2. Five Management Red Lines That Managers Must Not Cross
The following five management red lines represent the areas where managers are most likely to inadvertently cross the legal boundary in practice:
1. Red Line No. 1: Performance Improvement Plans vs. Deliberately Assigning Impossible Tasks to Force an Employee Out.
- Legitimate Management：Setting clear and achievable performance objectives, providing a reasonable timeframe and necessary resources for improvement, and implementing rewards or disciplinary measures based on the results of objective performance evaluations.
- Potential Workplace Bullying：A manager knowingly requires an employee to complete a task by the following morning, despite being aware that the task would reasonably require one week to complete, and threatens disciplinary action or termination if the employee fails to meet such an unreasonable deadline.
- Key Consideration：The former focuses on “improving performance”; the latter constitutes an “abuse of managerial authority. ”Such conduct may fall within Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures, which refers to the deliberate assignment of unreasonable work objectives or duties that are manifestly inconsistent with an employee’s capabilities 2.
2. Red Line No. 2: Public Review of Work Performance vs. Public Humiliation of Personal Dignity
- Legitimate Management：Objectively identifying work deficiencies during a meeting, for example:“This project is behind schedule. Please explain the reasons and propose an improvement plan.”
- Potential Workplace Bullying：A manager states during a meeting:“Do you even have a brain? How could you possibly present something like this? Are you a pig?”
- Key Consideration：The former addresses “work-related conduct and results”; the latter constitutes an attack on “personal dignity and character.” Even if such conduct occurs only once, it may still constitute workplace bullying if the circumstances are sufficiently serious 3.
3. Red Line No. 3: Legitimate Job Reassignment vs. Using a Transfer to Force an Employee to Resign
- Legitimate Management：Due to operational adjustments or business needs, an employee is transferred, after appropriate communication and consultation, to a position of a similar nature with unchanged salary or without any substantial adverse change in working conditions.
- Potential Workplace Bullying：A senior employee is transferred to perform cleaning duties or warehouse-related work, despite the fact that such duties differ significantly from the employee’s original position, involve a substantial reduction in salary, and lack legitimate business justification.
- Key Consideration：A lawful job transfer must comply with the requirements under Article 10-1 of the Labor Standards Act 4, including: the existence of genuine business necessity; the prohibition against improper motives; no adverse changes to wages or working conditions; and protection of the employee’s legitimate rights and interests. Where the purpose of the transfer is to “pressure the employee into voluntarily resigning,” such transfer may constitute a typical form of workplace bullying.
4. Red Line No. 4: Immediate Correction and Communication Regarding Work Errors vs. Long-Term Isolation Without Explanation
- Legitimate Management：A project team holds regular progress meetings. Where an employee repeatedly makes mistakes in the area of work for which the employee is responsible, the manager privately communicates with the employee after the meeting, provides immediate correction regarding the deficiencies, and explains an adjustment to the employee’s work arrangement. For example, the employee may temporarily cease participation in the relevant project and resume participation after completing other assignments.
- Potential Workplace Bullying：Although the team continues to hold regular weekly meetings, the manager suddenly stops including the employee in meeting invitations without prior notice or explanation, causing the employee to be unable to obtain information necessary for performing his or her duties.
- Key Consideration：A legitimate adjustment of work arrangements requires clear communication and proper notification, while maintaining necessary information flow within the workplace. If a work adjustment is implemented without prior notice, justification, or a defined duration, and effectively cuts off the employee’s access to information and communication channels necessary for performing job duties, such conduct may be regarded as an act of “social exclusion” as specified under Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations Governing Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures 5.
5. Red Line No. 5: Documenting Performance Data vs. Emotional Personal Attacks
- Legitimate Management：Conducting performance evaluations based on objective data, work records, and factual evidence, while providing specific recommendations for improvement.
- Potential Workplace Bullying：A manager records comments such as: “Poor attitude” or “unable to cooperate with the team” without identifying any specific incidents or objective evidence; or states during a performance review:“Someone like you will never be wanted anywhere.”
- Key Consideration：Performance evaluations must be supported by objective and verifiable evidence, rather than unsupported judgments regarding an employee’s personality or character. Managers should be aware that every performance evaluation record may become a key piece of evidence in a future workplace bullying investigation.
3. The Cost of Crossing the Line: From Significant Corporate Penalties to Individual Legal Risks for Managers
As discussed in our previous article, where an enterprise fails to establish workplace bullying prevention mechanisms and complaint-handling procedures in accordance with applicable laws, it may be subject to administrative fines of up to NT$1.125 million. Where such failure results in serious consequences, such as an employee suffering from an occupational disease, the enterprise may face enhanced penalties of up to NT$4.5 million. Furthermore, under the new workplace bullying regime, liability is not limited solely to the company. Where a manager is determined to have engaged in workplace bullying, the manager may face legal risks in three areas: administrative, criminal, and civil liability.
1. Administrative Liability
Where the manager is the company’s “highest-ranking responsible person” and is found to have engaged in workplace bullying, the individual manager may be subject to an administrative fine ranging from NT$10,000 to NT$1,000,000 6.
2. Criminal Liability
Depending on the specific conduct involved, a manager may potentially incur the following criminal liabilities:
- Offenses Against Reputation：Where a manager verbally insults or defames an employee in a group communication platform or public setting, such conduct may constitute criminal liability for: Public Insult under Article 309 of the Criminal Code 7; and Defamation under Article 310 of the Criminal Code 8.
- Bodily Injury：Where workplace bullying involves physical confrontation, such as pushing, pulling, striking, or other physical acts, resulting in injury to an employee, the manager may incur criminal liability for Causing Bodily Injury under Article 277 of the Criminal Code 9.
- Criminal Intimidation：Where a manager threatens an employee with harm to the employee’s life, body, liberty, reputation, or property, and such threat creates a danger to the employee’s personal security, the manager may be liable for Intimidation under Article 305 of the Criminal Code 10. For example, statements such as:“I will make sure you can no longer work in this industry and that you will never find another job.” may, depending on the circumstances, constitute criminal intimidation.
- Coercion：Where a manager uses violence or threats to compel an employee to perform an act that the employee has no legal obligation to perform, or interferes with the employee’s exercise of lawful rights, the manager may incur criminal liability for Coercion under Article 304 of the Criminal Code 11.
3. Civil Liability for Damages
Where a manager intentionally or negligently unlawfully infringes upon an employee’s personality rights, including the rights to bodily integrity, health, reputation, liberty, privacy, or other legally protected interests, the manager shall be liable for damages arising from such tortious conduct pursuant to Articles 184 12 and 195 13of the Civil Code.
4. Three Practical Measures Managers Should Take to Protect Themselves
In workplace bullying disputes, whether a manager’s conduct constitutes legitimate management often depends on two critical factors: whether the managerial decision is supported by objective evidence; and whether the manager has followed proper procedures. The following three measures are essential for managers to protect themselves and avoid unintentionally crossing the legal boundary.
1. Maintain Objective Performance Data and Documentation
When conducting performance evaluations or reviewing an employee’s work performance, managers should always maintain objective factual records rather than relying solely on personal impressions or subjective opinions. For example, when a manager believes that an employee’s performance is inadequate, the manager should avoid making generalized statements such as:“Your performance is very poor.” Such labeling statements may easily create disputes and may be interpreted as emotional criticism or an attack on the employee’s personal ability. Instead, managers should identify specific facts and measurable results, such as: “The achievement rate of your quarterly sales target was 65%, which was below the team average of 92%.＂The focus of communication should be redirected from subjective assessments of an employee’s personality to objective facts and measurable data. Even where an employee disagrees with the evaluation, a manager who can provide objective evidence and factual support will be better positioned to demonstrate the legitimacy of the management decision and mitigate the risk of a workplace bullying claim.
2. Follow Reasonable and Proper Procedures
Before implementing disciplinary actions or changing an employee’s job duties, managers must strictly follow both internal company procedures and applicable legal requirements. In other words, managers should confirm that any management decision complies with: company policies and regulations; applicable labor laws; and principles of procedural fairness. For example, before imposing disciplinary measures, managers should: provide the employee with an opportunity to explain the relevant circumstances; allow the employee to present his or her opinions or explanations; and provide a reasonable period for improvement where appropriate. Skipping any procedural step—such as transferring an employee without prior notice, issuing disciplinary action without investigation, or imposing penalties without allowing the employee to respond—may cause the action to be viewed as arbitrary or malicious. Such conduct may increase the risk that the management decision will be considered workplace bullying. Therefore, following a proper and transparent procedure is one of the most effective ways for managers to protect themselves.
3. Maintain Written Records of All Important Matters
The most important safeguard is to maintain objective written records. All communications with employees, meeting minutes, and performance evaluation records should be properly documented and retained in writing or through email correspondence. Such documentation serves not only as an essential basis for internal management but also as critical evidence in the event of a dispute, demonstrating that the manager’s actions were both reasonable and necessary.
The fundamental principle behind these three measures is to establish management practices that are:“Supported by evidence and conducted through proper procedures.” If a workplace bullying complaint or litigation arises in the future, managers who have maintained objective records and followed appropriate procedures will be better able to demonstrate that their actions did not exceed the reasonable limits of their managerial authority and thereby protect their own legal interests.
Conclusion
Although Taiwan’s new workplace bullying prevention regime has now taken effect, the Ministry of Labor will continue to introduce and amend related subordinate regulations and supporting guidelines. Accordingly, enterprises must continuously review and adjust their internal prevention mechanisms and management policies to ensure ongoing compliance. For managers, the greatest risk often does not arise from being “too strict” in managing employees. Rather, the greater risk lies in believing that one is merely exercising legitimate managerial authority while unknowingly crossing the legal boundary.
Many managers consider their actions to be routine work instructions, performance coaching, or necessary supervision. However, from an employee’s perspective, the same conduct may be perceived as suppression, humiliation, or exclusion. Although courts and competent authorities generally apply rigorous standards when assessing workplace bullying cases, managers may still face significant difficulties in defending their conduct if they fail to implement proper procedures and maintain sufficient evidence.
Given that workplace bullying regulations continue to evolve, supporting measures remain subject to adjustment, and each case involves different factual circumstances, a one-time training session alone is insufficient to eliminate legal risks. What enterprises and managers require is continuous professional legal support that can provide timely advice and keep pace with regulatory developments. Whether dealing with: performance management for underperforming employees; the legality of job transfers or duty adjustments; or
responses to employee complaints, obtaining professional legal advice at an early stage can help identify potential legal boundaries and minimize management risks.
In the next article, this firm will examine workplace bullying issues from the perspective of employers and human resources professionals. The article will discuss how enterprises should appropriately respond when workplace bullying incidents arise and will further analyze common practical deficiencies and risk patterns, providing guidance for enterprises seeking to establish effective compliance mechanisms. Nevertheless, as each workplace bullying case involves different factual circumstances, the applicable legal assessment may vary accordingly. Before making any legal decisions, enterprises should seek professional legal advice to effectively manage and control potential risks.
References and Legal Sources
1 Article 22-1, Paragraph 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
"For the purposes of this Act, workplace bullying means that a worker, while performing duties at the workplace, is subjected by personnel of the employing entity who exploit their position, authority, or other power relationship to conduct that exceeds the scope of what is necessary and reasonable for business purposes, and who continuously engage in offensive, threatening, ostracizing, isolating, humiliating, or other inappropriate words or conduct, thereby causing harm to the worker's physical or mental health. However, where the circumstances are serious, continuity of such conduct shall not be required."
2 Article 2, Subparagraph 3 of the Regulations on Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures "The determination of workplace bullying shall conform to the definition set forth in Article 22-1, Paragraph 1 of the Act and shall be made after a comprehensive assessment of the background, frequency, location, motive, and purpose of the incident, as well as the following circumstances: 3. Abusing managerial authority or power over a specific individual by deliberately assigning unreasonable work targets or work that is manifestly beyond the individual's capabilities."
3 Same as Footnote 1.
4 Article 10-1 of the Labor Standards Act
"When reassigning a worker to a different position, an employer shall not violate the terms of the labor contract and shall comply with the following principles: The reassignment shall be based on genuine business necessity and shall not be made for any improper motive or purpose, unless otherwise provided by law. The worker's wages and other working conditions shall not be changed to the worker's disadvantage. The reassigned work shall be within the worker's physical capacity and technical competence. Where the reassignment requires relocation to a distant workplace, the employer shall provide necessary assistance. Due consideration shall be given to the worker's and the worker's family's living interests."
5 Article 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Regulations on Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures "The determination of workplace bullying shall conform to the definition set forth in Article 22-1, Paragraph 1 of the Act and shall be made after a comprehensive assessment of the background, frequency, location, motive, and purpose of the incident, as well as the following circumstances: 1. Deliberately excluding, ignoring, isolating, or ostracizing a specific individual, or preventing the individual from participating in necessary and important meetings, affairs, or activities."
6 Article 46 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
"Where the highest responsible person is determined to have committed workplace bullying, a fine of not less than NT$10,000 and not more than NT$1,000,000 shall be imposed."
7 Article 309 of the Criminal Code "A person who publicly insults another shall be punished by detention or a fine of not more than NT$9,000. Where the offense described in the preceding paragraph is committed by means of violence, the offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$15,000."
8 Article 310 of the Criminal Code
"A person who, with the intent that the matter be communicated to the public, alleges or disseminates a fact that is sufficient to injure another person's reputation commits the offense of defamation and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$15,000. Where the offense described in the preceding paragraph is committed through written text, drawings, or other visual representations, the offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$30,000. No punishment shall be imposed if the defamatory statement is proven to be true. However, this defense shall not apply where the defamatory matter concerns a person's private morality and is unrelated to the public interest."
9 Article 277 of the Criminal Code
"A person who causes bodily injury or impairment to another's health shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$500,000. If the injury results in the victim's death, the offender shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than seven years. If the injury results in serious bodily harm, the offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than ten years."
10 Article 305 of the Criminal Code
"A person who threatens another with harm to life, body, liberty, reputation, or property, thereby endangering the other's personal safety, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$9,000."
11 Article 304 of the Criminal Code
"A person who, by violence or intimidation, compels another to perform an act which the latter has no obligation to perform, or prevents another from exercising a lawful right, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$9,000. An attempt to commit the offense described in the preceding paragraph shall also be punishable."
12 Article 184 of the Civil Code
"A person who intentionally or negligently unlawfully infringes upon the rights of another shall be liable for damages. The same shall apply to a person who intentionally causes damage to another by means contrary to good morals. A person who violates a statute enacted for the protection of another and thereby causes damage shall also be liable for compensation, unless the person proves that he or she was not negligent."
13 Article 195 of the Civil Code
"A person who unlawfully infringes upon another's body, health, reputation, liberty, credit, privacy, chastity, or any other personality right under serious circumstances may be liable for reasonable compensation even where the victim has suffered no pecuniary loss. Where a person's reputation has been infringed, the victim may also request appropriate measures to restore his or her reputation. The claim provided in the preceding paragraph may not be assigned or inherited, unless the amount of compensation has been agreed upon by contract or legal proceedings have already been instituted. The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis where a person's legally protected interests arising from the parent-child or spousal relationship are unlawfully infringed under serious circumstances."
If you require legal advice regarding trust structures, or need to review the legal terms of trust contracts provided by financial institutions or trust companies, please feel free to contact:
Attorney Wu Jiehua
charlotte.wu@zhongyinlawyer.com.tw
tel +886 2 2377 1858 ext 8888