Compared to physical conflict or sexual harassment, workplace bullying often takes the form of psychological violence, which typically lacks clear behavioral evidence and is difficult for outsiders to detect. Perpetrators isolate colleagues, deliberately ignore them, maliciously create difficulties in their work, or publicly belittle their abilities in meetings, causing victims to unknowingly lose confidence and even develop long-term symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia. Yet they often have no channel for complaint, and avenues for seeking help remain vague and uncertain.
After the new Occupational Safety and Health Act took effect, workplace conflict incidents that had long been classified as “interpersonal communication issues” and left unresolved began to have clear legal definitions and complaint channels. Local labor bureaus and companies gradually accepted related complaints, and workplace bullying cases came to light one after another, becoming a highly discussed issue in labor-management relations in recent times.
What counts as workplace bullying? The new system draws a key line between “task-focused” and “person-focused” conduct.
On December 2, 2025, the newly added “Workplace Bullying Prevention Chapter” of our country’s Occupational Safety and Health Act passed its third reading in the Legislative Yuan. The “Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures Guidelines” and the “Handling Procedures for Local Competent Authorities Accepting Complaints of Workplace Bullying by Highest-Level Supervisors,” which provide more complete regulations and a legal basis, were officially announced by the Ministry of Labor on June 23, 2026. Both took effect simultaneously on July 1, 2026.
According to Article 22-1 of the new law, “workplace bullying” refers to when a worker (victim) performing duties at the place of work suffers harm to their physical or mental health because a supervisor, colleague, or subordinate, using their position or authority, “exceeds the necessary and reasonable scope of business operations and continuously engages in offensive, threatening, neglectful, isolating, insulting, or other inappropriate words or actions.” However, if the bullying is severe, the condition of “continuous occurrence” is not required.
Using common practical scenarios as examples: when a supervisor requires subordinates to review performance and increase client visits, this is reasonable management within the scope of their authority and does not constitute bullying. However, if a supervisor long-term excludes specific employees from meetings or group notifications, always nitpicks or swaps out assigned tasks, or publicly demeans the person’s character in front of colleagues—even if no single major incident occurs—as long as the behavior is repeated and continuous, exceeds what is necessary for business operations, and causes physical or mental harm to the individual, it may constitute workplace bullying under the law. If the circumstances are particularly severe, such as extreme public humiliation of an employee, it may still be established under the law even if it occurs only once.
This also means that after the Workplace Bullying Prevention Act takes effect, the boundary defined by the law is not whether supervisors can demand work performance, but whether their behavior has shifted from being “task-focused” to “person-targeted” degradation and isolation. Such clear regulations have led more and more workers to realize that the workplace experiences causing them long-term mental and physical exhaustion may not be a matter of insufficient personal resilience, but may constitute harmful conduct explicitly protected against by law, which employers are obligated to address.
The burden of proof falls on the victim. Tech industry employees face long-term oppression and have nowhere to turn for help.
However, the biggest challenge after the new system takes effect is that “the burden of proof falls on the injured worker.” For example, how to obtain concrete, defensible evidence regarding the constituent elements of “continuity,” “exceeding reasonable bounds,” and “causing physical or mental harm” is precisely the hurdle that deters many victims.
A-Hao (a pseudonym), who works at a technology company in central-southern Taiwan, had been serving as a project assistant for over three years. His work performance had originally been stable, but his direct supervisor’s attitude changed drastically after a meeting. From then on, A-Hao was gradually excluded from department meeting invitation lists, and the tasks assigned to him would always be suddenly swapped out or increased in workload at the last minute. He was even asked to complete projects that clearly exceeded his job responsibilities on his own. Whenever there was even a slight delay, the supervisor would publicly criticize his work performance through email copies or group messages.
Having long been in a work environment marked by marginalization and verbal pressure, Ah-Hao gradually developed physical and mental symptoms such as insomnia and loss of appetite. He repeatedly reported the situation to HR, but was brushed off each time as an “interpersonal communication issue,” with no concrete response forthcoming. As his physical and mental condition continued to deteriorate, and uncertain whether the scattered screenshots and emails he had on hand were enough to support a formal complaint, Ah-Hao ultimately decided to seekJinpin Detective AgencyAssistance is requested to systematically clarify the full context of the incident and obtain relevant records sufficient for corroboration.
The evidence collection procedure conforms to the five constituent elements. A professional investigation team assists in clarifying the facts and evidence.
Many victims initially did not realize they were being bullied; instead, they long felt excluded and had their work devalued, only becoming aware of the seriousness of the problem after their physical and mental health deteriorated.Jinpin Detective AgencyZhan Xiaoyu, the person in charge, pointed out that although the new workplace bullying regulations have clearly defined five constituent elements—”workplace-related,” “power relationship,” “exceeding reasonable behavior,” “continuity,” and “causing physical and mental harm”—the elements must all be met simultaneously in order to provide a stronger evidentiary basis for the complaint and subsequent investigation process. This was precisely the core direction of evidence collection when the Jinpin team intervened in Ahao’s case.
Regarding the “continuity” requirement, Jinpin Investigation Agency primarily reorganized the scattered meeting notice changes, task assignments, and email correspondence on A-Hao’s end in chronological order, reconstructing a complete timeline showing how the supervisor’s behavioral patterns recurrently emerged after a certain meeting—rather than relying on conflicting accounts of isolated incidents. As for “power relationship” and “exceeding reasonable behavior,” they further compared the workload and deadline disparities in tasks assigned to A-Hao both past and present, as well as to other colleagues, highlighting that the relevant arrangements clearly exceeded what was necessary for business purposes and were directly tied to the supervisor’s positional authority. This was done to establish the causal link to “physical and mental harm,” serving as a key basis for later substantiating the connection between the damage to A-Hao’s physical and mental health and his workplace experiences. Throughout this evidence-gathering process, all steps were conducted within the scope of data A-Hao had lawfully obtained or was entitled to access; the investigation team did not and could not access employees’ private communications through internal corporate systems.
“What we can do is, according to the legal requirements, piece together scattered clues into facts that are comprehensible and defensible.” Zhan Xiaoyu emphasized that when faced with workplace bullying, one should preserve relevant records as early as possible in line with the five constituent elements. The more systematically evidence is preserved and the better it corresponds to legal requirements, the more leverage one can gain when filing a complaint with the company, applying for mediation with the labor bureau, or entering compensation procedures.
Establish a user-friendly complaint mechanism Let invisible harm be seen.
Taiwan Detective Professional AssociationSecretary-General Chen Yi-chun stated that after the implementation of the “Workplace Bullying Prevention Chapter,” labor complaint channels and employer obligations have become clearer, but regulations only provide direction and channels; what truly protects the parties involved is collecting and preserving evidence according to the constituent elements as early as possible. He urged companies to establish smooth and trustworthy complaint mechanisms, rather than letting victimized employees silently endure in isolation and helplessness.
Chen Yijun also reminded that when facing workplace bullying, those involved should not choose to endure it silently or fight alone. They should seek professional assistance early to organize evidence, and simultaneously consult legal and psychological resources, so as to protect their own rights while avoiding long-term physical and mental exhaustion that could lead to more serious health problems. Only by making “invisible harm” concretely visible can we truly push the workplace environment toward a healthier and fairer direction.
It is worth mentioning that if members of the public encounter fee disputes, service quality falling short of expectations, or discrepancies in understanding with service providers during the process of commissioning investigation services, the Taiwan Detective Association also maintains an external complaint mechanism, offering consultation and mediation channels for the public. The association stated that promoting industry self-regulation and establishing a complaint mechanism are intended to ensure that when consumers seek investigation assistance, they can not only consider the professional competence of service providers but also have a neutral and trustworthy resource to turn to, jointly advancing the overall investigation industry toward more transparent and responsible service quality.
Source: KOCPC Chinese