Judge grants bail to thieving employer

Former employees of the Lien-fu Textile Company (聯福紡織), which closed its Taoyuan plant in 1996, yesterday protested against the Taoyuan District Court's decision to grant bail to their former employer.

Lee Ming-hsiung (李明雄) achieved notoriety for absconding -- and remaining overseas for five years -- without making legally required severance and retirement payments and allegedly appropriating workers' health and labor insurance fees.

The protesters said they were afraid that Ming might flee again before settling still outstanding labor disputes with them.

"I am desperately upset with the judicial system," said Tseng Mao-shing (曾茂興), a labor rights leader who had been jailed for participating in a demonstration by Lien-fu employees.

The demonstration involved occupying a railroad track after the workers' efforts to seek payment of the money due them achieved nothing.

The high-profile demonstration in 1996 served to focus attention on other ongoing labor disputes.

Lee fled to Southeast Asia to avoid settling with his employees five years ago.

The dispute involves up to NT$180 million in severance and retirement pay that he failed to pay before closing down the plant in Taoyuan, affecting the livelihood of its 300 workers.

Taiwan's Labor Standards Law requires the payment of severance and retirement pay, but non-compliance is handled under civil law.

Lee was also charged, however, with misappropriating NT$3 million in workers' health and labor insurance fees, a charge which does carry a criminal penalty.

It was on the latter charge that he was deported from Thailand last Thursday, escorted by officials of the Investigation Bureau (調查局) under the Ministry of Justice (法務部).

The next day the Taoyuan district court released Lee on bail of NT$200,000.

Cheng Ching-wen (鄭景文), spokesman for the court, explained that the detention of Lee was based on the charge that he had misappropriated employees' insurance fees, rather than the concern that he had failed to offer severance and retirement pay to the employers.

"The sum of money involved in this case is not that significant. That is why we approved his bail. Other disputes involving civil affairs ... do not come into the judge's consideration," Cheng said.

Despite the court's justification, labor rights activists were concerned that Lee might flee again.

They insisted that "the judge should also take into consideration that Lee has a record of escaping his responsibilities and what he owes to his employees by fleeing abroad, resulting in great efforts on the part of investigators to get him back."

They added that the court should have taken Lee into custody as a suspect in significant economic crimes and kept him detained to ensure that an investigation could be carried out.

They also said that somebody like Lee, who closed down his factory without warning and fled abroad to avoid paying severance and retirement pay -- despite the fact that he could afford it -- should be subject to the rigors of the criminal law and public prosecution.

Labor rights activists charge that employers sidestep the law with impunity due to the failure to categorize violations under the criminal law.

"Employers dare to leave the island without meeting their obligations to employees ... because most laborers cannot afford lawyers to bring civil charges against them."