Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7 (2024)
TAIPEI, August 15, 2024 — The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its Judgment of the "Case on Accruing Previous Seniority in Salary Assessment for Certified Substitute Teachers"[1](TCC Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7) on May 31, 2024.
Principal Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Substitute teachers, either certified or uncertified, are relief teachers who stand in full-time for regular teachers when they are taking a leave or unable to perform their teaching duties. Substitute teachers are generally employed in high schools and lower-level schools (elementary and junior high), which can be further categorized into national schools, private schools, and county/municipal schools. However, the remuneration guidelines on whether to accrue seniority of past teaching jobs for substitute teachers differ in different regions, levels, or types of schools because they apply different regulations—some stipulated by the Ministry of Education, and some by local governments. Questions arise as to whether these distinctions and, additionally, the differential treatment between substitute and regular teachers violates the constitutional principle of equal protection.
The petitioner, Mr. Kai-Hsiang CHANG, was a certified substitute teacher contracted by New Taipei Municipal Zhonghe Senior High School in 2017. When assessing the petitioner's salary, the school referred to the "Criteria for Assessing Salary for Public Schools and Preschools Substitute Teachers." The school did not accrue his seniority (also as a substitute teacher) in two other public high schools. After unsuccessful administrative appeals and exhaustion of ordinary judicial remedies, the petitioner filed for constitutional review.
The petitioner argued that the following regulations and letters have violated Articles 7, 15 and 23 of the Constitution for creating different treatment in the remuneration of substitute teachers: (1) The 2000 version of Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Teachers' Act (hereinafter "Provision I"), (2) The 2014 version of Article 12 of the Regulations of Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Substitute Teachers in Elementary and Junior High Schools[2] (hereinafter "Provision II"), (3) The 2021 version of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Supplement Regulations on Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Teachers of New Taipei City Municipal High Schools, Junior High and Elementary Schools[3] (hereinafter "Provision III"), (4) First Sentence of Note 3 of the Criteria for Assessing Salary for Public Schools and Preschools Substitute Teachers issued by the Education Department of the New Taipei City Government[4] (hereinafter "Provision IV"), (5) Ministry of Education Letter Tai(87)-Jen(Yi)-87129048 of November 30, 1998 (hereinafter "Letter I"), (6) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050009778 of January 26, 2016, (hereinafter "Letter II"), (7) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050044815 of April 1, 2016 (hereinafter "Letter III"), and (8) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Shou-Kuo-1050121014 of November 3, 2016 (hereinafter "Letter IV"). The petitioner also argued that J.Y. Interpretation No.707, which ruled on the legal authorization of the remuneration regulations for public school (including elementary, junior high, and high schools) teachers, should be supplemented.
This case was argued on March 12, 2024. Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7 (2024) was announced on August 9, 2024. Justice Jeong-Duen TSAI wrote this Judgment. Two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part were filed. Three opinions dissenting in part were filed.
Decision of the Court
The TCC upheld the constitutionality of Provision I, finding it in accordance with the doctrine of specific authorization regarding teachers' remuneration laid out by J.Y. Interpretation No.707.
The TCC declared the following provisions/ letters unconstitutional: (1) Provision II, Letters II, III, and IV, which largely authorized the competence of stipulating supplement remuneration regulations of certified substitute teachers to the local educational authorities; and (2) Provisions III and IV, which are regulations announced by the Education Department of the New Taipei City Government stipulating not to accrue previous seniority for substitute teachers when assessing their salaries. The TCC ruled that the matters stipulated by these provisions and letters pertained to the educational personnel system and should fall within the legislative discretion of the central government under Article 108, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Constitution. The TCC pointed out that inconsistent systems between different counties/cities would render counties/cities with unfair fiscal burdens, and render the substitute teachers lacking protection in terms of their rights in remuneration.
The TCC declared the following provisions/letters unconstitutional: (1) Letters II, III, and IV and (2) Provisions III and IV, which allowed schools to discount previous seniority (from other schools) when assessing the salary of new substitute teachers. The TCC applied intermediate scrutiny and held that these provisions/ letters violated equal protection under Article 7 of the Constitution. The TCC emphasized that the different treatment between substitute teachers and teachers, in which the latter could accrue their seniority from their previous schools, would lead to unequal pay for equal work.
References:
[1] Previously argued under the case name “Case on Including Previous Job Tenure in Salary Assessment for Elementary/Junior High School Substitute Teachers.”
[2] Name of the regulation translated by the translator of this Case News because there was currently no official English translation. Original Chinese name of the regulation: [中小兼任代課及代理教師聘任辦法].
[3] Name of the regulation translated by the translator of this Case News because there was currently no official English translation. Original Chinese name of the regulation: [新北市立高中職及國民中小學兼任代課及代理教師聘任補充規定].
[4] Name of the regulation translated by the translator of this Case News because there was currently no official English translation. Original Chinese name of the regulation: [新本市政府教育局所屬公立學校暨幼兒園代理教師敘薪基準表].
Notes:
- Full texts of the Judgment and Opinions are available on the TCC website here (Traditional Chinese). An English summary of this Judgment will be available later on the TCC English website.
- The TCC’s Case News is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan) for information only and does not bind the Court.
- In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.