讀後心得

StarLux Airlines was fined 300,000 NT dollars by the Taoyuan City Government for repeatedly rejecting the job application of a 56-year-old worker, as an investigation concluded that age discrimination was present. The worker had applied for six positions but was rejected on the grounds of "limited job vacancies." StarLux Airlines filed an appeal against this penalty, claiming that recruitment is assessed based on resume content and denying any discrimination. However, the Ministry of Labor rejected their appeal, stating that the company failed to prove there was no discrimination and noted that the data they provided only showed a low proportion of older employees. StarLux Airlines expressed regret over the ruling.

Starlux Airlines is conducting recruitment, and a 56-year-old worker submitted a resume but was repeatedly rejected during interviews. The Taoyuan City Government determined that the company exhibited discriminatory behavior towards middle-aged and older job seekers, consequently imposing a fine of NT$300,000 on Starlux Airlines. Starlux Airlines was dissatisfied with this penalty and filed an administrative appeal, claiming that its recruitment process was based on a comprehensive assessment of resumes. However, the Ministry of Labor recently rejected the appeal, upholding the original penalty.

According to the decision document of the appeal, a worker named Liu applied for six positions at Starlux Airlines from August to September 2023, including pilot, baggage handler, wheelchair service crew member, cabin cleaning crew member, loading and unloading crew member, and cargo transportation crew member, but was rejected for all, with the reason being "limited vacancies." Liu subsequently filed a complaint with the Taoyuan City Government's Labor Bureau, accusing Starlux Airlines of discriminating based on age during the recruitment process.

After investigation, the Taoyuan City Government determined that Starlux Airlines failed to provide specific reasons for the rejections and could not prove that its hiring standards were free of discrimination; thus, it ruled to impose a fine of NT$300,000. Starlux Airlines disagreed with this ruling and appealed to the Ministry of Labor, stating that its recruitment operations were based on a comprehensive assessment of resumes and not determined by age, and that there were also middle-aged employees within the company, thereby denying any discriminatory behavior.

However, the Ministry of Labor's appeal committee reviewed the relevant information and found that Starlux Airlines did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that it was not involved in age discrimination; therefore, it rejected the appeal and maintained the original penalty. A relevant official from the Ministry of Labor pointed out that according to the Employment Promotion Law for Middle-Aged and Elderly People, if job seekers feel they are treated differently, the employer must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the differences in treatment are unrelated to age. However, Starlux Airlines failed to provide adequate information to support its claims.

For instance, while Starlux Airlines submitted related age demographic tables showing middle-aged workers, most were senior staff rather than new hires, and their proportion was relatively inadequate. Regarding the six positions Liu applied for, Starlux Airlines rejected all of them, citing limited vacancies, while these positions were actually still open, indicating that the company might not be truthful in its claims.

According to legal regulations, for job seeking or employment of middle-aged and elderly individuals, employers must not provide differential treatment based on age, including in recruitment, selection, and all other related processes. Starlux Airlines reiterated that its recruitment follows principles of fairness, considering the nature of job vacancies, the capabilities of interviewees, and their past work performance for a comprehensive evaluation, without using age as a criterion. The company expressed regret over the outcome of the appeal.