When the issue of whether or not being an employer in a labor contract becomes a dispute between employees and employers, it influ-ences the issue concerning whom employees should sue to confirm the employed-status in the labor contract. In theory, only the party written or expressed in the labor contract can be the employer. However, as the economy grows and organizational management changes, employment patterns also become diversified. It would be improper to make the only employer in the written labor contract be liable to the employee. In this situation, the study makes use of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to extend the concept of the employer.
Although several judgments denied such a doctrine to be used in the case of the Labor Act in recent years, the Taiwan Supreme Court declared the following: To prevent the employer from dodging the law concerning the improper dismissal by the state of the juridical person, and eliminate the problem of abusing the right of dismissal from the employer, it should also concern the other juridical person who has “the same single entity” with the “original employer” and also has no ade-quate work to help the employee to settle down. Under these circum-stances, in order to understand how to apply the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to resolve the dispute between the employer and employ-ee, it is necessary to undertake further examination.
In light of the fact that this doctrine has been widely discussed in Japan for years and many courts also abide by the verdicts concerning it in Japan, this study will examine the development of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in the academy and its application in courts, as a reference of the academic discussion and its application in courts in Taiwan.