Chen Shuqiong, associate professor of the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology at National Donghua University, went to China for inspection in 2018 but did not complete the leave application process. Years later, the school deemed her absent from work for five days and demanded a salary of more than 10,000 yuan. Chen filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that if Those with attendance problems should be given the opportunity to make amends instead of being turned into absenteeism after many years. The Taipei High Administrative Court held that the school's decision to change the case to absenteeism through a special meeting without review by the Faculty Council violated university autonomy and due administrative procedures, and ruled in Chen's favor. Can be appealed.
The judgment pointed out that Chen Shuqiong applied for official leave through the school's attendance system on January 10, 2018, and planned to go to China for inspection between the 13th and 30th of the same year, which was approved by the department and college supervisors. However, the academic affairs team returned the application on January 15th on the grounds that there were still courses during the leave and required supplementary teaching materials. Chen's application again that afternoon was still rejected by the academic affairs team, and the leave application process was not completed.
After receiving the report, Donghua University launched an investigation in 2021, and finally determined that Ms. Chen had not completed the leave application process, but had no intention of intentionally not asking for leave, and decided to issue a written warning; however, the Supervisory Yuan proposed a correction text in 2024, so the school held another ad hoc meeting, and finally determined that Ms. Chen was absent from work from January 15 to 19, and required a return of 16,156 yuan in salary.
Chen was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit in the hope that the court would revoke the absenteeism penalty. She claimed that she submitted an application for leave on January 10, 2018, but the school delayed the review on the 15th, and that the assistant of the academic affairs team without authority rejected it without giving a reason; if there are any questions about the leave application, The HR office should have informed her to explain or convert the leave into personal leave, but it turned out that she was absent from work many years later. In addition, it was final exam week, most of the courses she was responsible for did not require exams, and invigilators were arranged for a few courses. The school determined that absenteeism was an abuse of authority.
Donghua University maintains that teachers who fail to complete the leave application process are deemed to be absent from work. Although university teachers do not manage attendance by signing in and out, they still have attendance obligations. However, Ms. Chen did not submit substitute materials as required at the time, and full-time teachers also have other duties besides teaching. She cannot be exempted from attendance responsibilities just because the course schedule is properly arranged.
The collegial panel held that the duties of university teachers include teaching, research and service. Based on the protection of academic freedom, they can independently decide the time, place and method of performing their duties under the employment contract. The school cannot directly determine absenteeism simply because the teacher has not completed the leave application process. In addition, the judge believes that whether teachers perform their duties should also be substantively reviewed by teaching evaluation committees at all levels to establish identification standards among academic peers.
The collegial panel pointed out that Chen's failure to complete the leave application process when she went to China was reviewed by the three-level teaching council as early as 2022. It was determined that she had no intention of intentionally not asking for leave and decided to give a written warning. However, the school subsequently corrected it and converted the ad hoc meeting into absenteeism due to corrections by the Supervisory Yuan. It was also unable to propose that the ad hoc meeting had a legal basis for identifying university teachers as absent from duty. There were no school rules authorizing the ad hoc meeting to make a decision different from that of the teaching council, which violated the spirit of university autonomy.
In addition, the school's human resources office also stated that after verification by the department, Ms. Chen's coursework had been arranged during this period, and there was no fact of absenteeism or absence from classes. The school only recognized absenteeism because she had not completed the leave application process. There was also an error in the determination of facts. Therefore, the judgment was made to revoke Ms. Chen's absenteeism penalty, and the entire case can still be appealed.
