my illegal dismissal case, including the history of my employment, dismissal, and legal
appeals.
In sum, the legal issues are plain. I won a Ministry
ruling on 8 January 2002. It is now more than two years and that ruling has
not been enforced. If a Ministry ruling has no legal sanction or force in
Taiwan, then
1. There is no law in Taiwan or,
2. The Taiwan government is not willing to enforce the law on behalf of
foreigners, specifically Americans.
Moreover, despite the Ministry’s nominal (verbal) support, the Ministry
has imposed no penalties on the university or officials involved for
1. Previous legal rights violations (listed here), or
2. Currently defying the Ministry ruling.
SUMMARY
1. In September 1988, I started teaching as an
Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
(FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU).
2. On 29 March 1999, my automatic teaching contract
was not renewed by a decision of the Review Committee of the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD). The meeting was secret. I was
neither informed nor present. Accusations were neither proved,
investigated, nor credible (the previous departmental chairman had already
rejected one of the accusations).
3. On 23 April 1999, I appealed to the NCKU College
of Liberal Arts Review Committee. The Review Committee met on 3 May. The
committee ruled that the evidence provided by the FLLD Review Committee was
not concrete and objective. However, this committee should have rejected the
non-renewal decision of the FLLD. Instead, the committee requested the
FLLD Review Committee to present more evidence.
4. On 9 June 1999 the College Review Committee
convened a second meeting. The FLLD chairman was invited to the meeting but
I was not.
5. On 14 June 1999, the College of Liberal Arts
College Review Committee met. I was not invited to the meeting, again
denying my right to defend myself. The committee decided not to renew my
contract.
6. On 25 June 1999, the NCKU University Review
Committee met and decided not to renew my contract. The reasons for the
non-renewal of my contract were not investigated, in violation of clause 14
of the Teacher’s Law, clause 34 of the NCKU constitution, and Clause 7 of
the NCKU directives on hiring teaching staff. This is denying my basic
rights as a teacher of the university.
7. On 18 July 1999, I appealed to the University
Appeal Committee. On 3 December 1999, the NCKU Appeal Committee met. The
Appeal committee found that the FLLD Review Committee mishandled the
procedure of the meeting in the judgment of my case and cancelled the
dismissal decision of the university. By law, the university should have
issued the contract then. Instead, the university allowed the FLLD Review
committee to review me again, giving the FLLD Review Committee yet another
chance to dismiss me. This is a violation of the principles of
administrative remedy, i.e. the purpose of appeal.
8. When the non-renewal contract decision was
cancelled, according to the Teacher’s law article 14, the NCKU should have
awarded me a contract. However, on 27 December 1999, NCKU refused to do so.
9. The FLLD Review Committee reexamined my case on 10
March 2000. The decision was the non-renewal of the contract.
10. The College Review reexamined my case on 12 April
2000. The decision was the non-renewal of the contract.
11. The NCKU Review Committee met on 24 May 2000 and
decided not to renew my contract, maintaining the same reasons as the
previous year. And these reasons were still not investigated or proved.
12. I appealed to the University Appeal Committee
on 12 June 2000. On 18 August 2000, the NCKU Appeal Committee rejected my
appeal. The reasons now were that the university can dismiss a foreign
teacher when it decides there is no need to hire this foreign teacher; and,
additionally, foreign teachers are not protected by the Teacher’s Law as
native teachers are.
13. On 5 September 2000, I appealed to the Ministry
of Education (MOE) Appeal Committee. On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal
Committee invalidated the university’s dismissal. The reasons were that the
university’s dismissal reasons were not legally investigated and proved, and
foreign teachers are protected by the Teacher’s Law. The Ministry
bold-faced legal rights violations committed by the university.
14. According to law, when the non-renewal contract
decision was invalidated, the NCKU should have awarded me a contract.
However, on 27 March 2001, NCKU refused to do.
15. On 30 March 2001, I requested the MOE to force
the university’s compliance with the MOE Appeal Committee’s decision. Since
then, the MOE has sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract and compensate the salary. Until today, the
university has still not complied with the MOE’s ruling.
The main points made in these letters were :
1) a teacher’s hiring status is recovered when dismissal decision is
cancelled;
2) before a legal decision of dismissal is reached, new teaching contract
should be issued;
3) foreign teachers are protected by the Teacher’s Law;
4) both contract and salary should be issued and compensated;
5) the on-going court procedures are not reasons for delaying issuance of
my contract, the university therefore should not wait for court’s verdict
[see explanations below].)
16. On 12 September 2001, the NCKU Review Committee
for the third time decided not to renew my contract. Reasons were the same
as those rejected on Ministry appeal.
17. Under formal protest (since, by law, the Ministry
ruling had terminated the case), I appealed to the University Appeal
Committee on 23 October 2001. On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee
cancelled the university’s dismissal decision. The university still did not
issue me a contract.
18. On 18 January 2002, the university filed a
lawsuit against me at the Tainan District Court, claiming, “there is no
employment relationship between the NCKU and De Canio.”
19. On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court
ruled that, “until a legal dismissal, the employment relationship between
the NCKU and De Canio is valid and continues.”
20. On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to
the Taiwan Higher Court. In the first court session, the judge suggested
that NCKU settle.
21. On 22 January 2003, university officials convened
a meeting with me, and, in effect, attempted to extort a “settlement” that
violated the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering me half salary
on agreement I resign from the university by August 2003, apparently
allowing the university to save face. In effect threatening me, university
representatives suggested the university could contest this case in the
courts for many years. On principle, I declined these conditions.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(06) 237 8626
email: vertigo@ms22.hinet.net
No comments:
Post a Comment