In the case of a failed labor mediation that continues with litigation procedures, the case shall continue to be handled in accordance with Ordinary, Summary, or Small Claims Proceedings, as applicable to the circumstances of the case.
If the judgment fee in the litigation case, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is not paid in full, or if the amount is still insufficient after deductions from the paid labor mediation filing fee are applied, the presiding judge shall order a ratification within a specified period.
If the agent has already submitted a letter of appointment in the labor mediation procedures, there is no need to do so again in the first instance of continuing litigation proceedings.

When adjudicating a labor case, the court shall ex officio investigate whether or not there are circumstances in which the litigation procedures should be stayed, in accordance with the stipulation in Article 42, Paragraph 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes.

When a labor case is initiated in a court, it is advisable to state clearly in the complaint that the case has grounds, as described in the provisions of Article 16, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 and Subparagraph 2 of this Act, as well as to include evidence that can attest to such effects.

When a case is disposed in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 of this Act, the court shall provide specific concrete advice to the parties with regards to the attack and defense methods they should submit, the deadline for submitting their attack and defense methods, and the effects of losing rights as a result of submission after the deadline.

In accordance with Article 32, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 5 of this Act, the hiring of labor mediators, who participate in consultation, shall not be limited to those who participated in the labor mediation procedures of the same case.
The Supreme Court, the High Court, and its divisions may recruit labor mediators appointed by the local courts within their jurisdictions to participate in the aforementioned consultation.

When adjudicating a labor case, if the court ex officio investigates necessary evidence, the parties should be given the chance to express their opinions.

The facts, evidence and information, dispositions, and/or appropriate case-resolution proposals that should be taken into consideration, as described in the provisions of Article 34, Paragraph 1 of this Act, shall not include unfavorable statements or concessions made by the parties in the labor mediation procedures. However, this provision does not apply to written agreements, as stipulated in Article 30, Paragraph 2 of this Act.

If a worker's declaration of documentary evidence uses documentation that the employer is legally required to provide, the workers may file a motion to the court to order the employer to provide the said documentation.
In the circumstances of the preceding paragraph, if the court recognizes that the facts to be proved are important, and the worker's request is justified, the court shall order the employer to provide the said documentation with a ruling.
In accordance with Article 33, Paragraph 1 of this Act, the court shall ex officio order the employer to provide the documentation that the employer is legally required to provide.

In a case that involves intellectual property rights, as described in the provisions of Article 4, Paragraph 1, if the circumstances as stipulated in Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act exist, the court shall not disclose the said documents and/or objects for inspection. However, this rule does not apply, if it is necessary to disclose such items to the related parties in order to hear their opinions.
Under the circumstances described in the proviso of the preceding paragraph, the court must notify the holders of the documents and/or objects for inspection before making disclosure. If the holder files a motion requesting a Confidentiality Preservation Order within fourteen days from the date of receiving the notice, the court shall not disclose the said items before there is a final ruling on the motion.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 36, Paragraph 5 of this Act, if the court deems that the fact to which the said evidence should attest is true, the parties involved should be given the opportunity to present their arguments before a ruling is made.

Employers who deny the presumptions described in the provisions of Article 37 and Article 38 of this Act shall provide evidence to the contrary as proof.

Workers who claim for compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 39, Paragraph 1 of this Act, shall indicate the specific amount of the claim and the reasons for requesting compensation, and it is advisable to indicate the specific deadline by which specific acts of the employer are to be implemented or by which specific acts of the employer are to be ceased.
The amount of the claim described in the preceding paragraph shall be calculated in accordance with the proviso of Article 77-2, Paragraph 1 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.
When granting a claim, as described in the first paragraph, the court shall take into account all circumstances not beneficial to workers if the employer delays the implementation of specific acts or the requirement of not acting in a specific way and then shall set the deadline for implementation or prohibition of specific acts.

The court shall decide concurrently on the claim for compensation in accordance with the provisions of Article 39, Paragraph 1 of this Act, as well as the claim for injunctive relief implementing or prohibiting specific acts on the part of the employer.

Only after the court orders the employer to pay compensation and the order is final, in accordance with Article 39, Paragraph 1 of this Act, within the implementation time frame set by the judgment, may the workers file a motion for compulsory enforcement of relief implementing or prohibiting specific acts on the part of the employer.
Only if the employer fails to implement or complete the enforcement within the deadline mentioned in the preceding paragraph can the workers file a motion for compulsory enforcement of compensation, and in that case, they cannot move for compulsory enforcement, continued enforcement of the implementation of specific acts, or the prohibition of specific acts on the part of the employer.

If the employer fulfills the implementation of specific acts or the requirement not to act, with the consent of the workers and after the deadline set by the court, the workers shall not move for compulsory enforcement or continued enforcement of compensation.

The members, as referred to in Article 40, Paragraph 1 of this Act, shall be limited to natural-person members.
If a labor union reaches a settlement in a lawsuit in accordance with Article 40, Paragraph 1 of this Act, it shall be approved by the court. If a settlement is reached in the labor mediation procedures, it shall be approved by the labor mediation committee.
The court shall make public the litigation proceedings as mentioned in Article 40, Paragraph 1 of this Act, and shall notify other labor unions who have the same standing to sue in writing concerning the lawsuit and the extent of its progress.
In the case described in the preceding paragraph, the publication shall be made on the court's bulletin board or on its official website.
Other labor unions that have the same standing to sue, as stipulated in Article 40, Paragraph 1 of this Act, may be added as plaintiffs or participate in litigation in accordance with the law.

The amount of remuneration for a lawyer, as referred to in Article 40, Paragraph 5 of this Act, shall be determined by the Court in a separate ruling at the time of the final judgment of each trial level; if the litigation proceedings are terminated without a ruling, the court shall determine such amount at the time of ruling on the court cost.

If the court rules to stop the original litigation proceedings, in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 2 of this Act, it does not contravene with the rulings on Perpetuation of Evidence in accordance with the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.
If the additional claim, as mentioned in Article 41, Paragraph 1 of this Act, is finalized, the court may revoke, by request or ex officio, the ruling of the stay of the original litigation proceedings.

The workers petitioning for a joinder, pursuant to the stipulation in Article 42, Paragraph 1 of this Act, are not limited to the said appointed party.

The labor union, as referred to in the stipulation of Article 43 of this Act, shall not demand remuneration, consideration, transfer rights, or any other benefits from either the appointing workers or the workers deemed as appointing persons.

If the court should ex officio declare the exemption of a provisional execution, in accordance the provisions of Article 44, Paragraph 2 of this Act, but fails to do so, the court shall supplement such a declaration with a judgment in accordance with the stipulation of Article 394 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.

If workers choose to withdraw the appointment for litigation, as described in the provisions of Article 44-1 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure or Article 42 of this Act, the withdrawal shall be evidenced in writing.
If workers who object to the judgment of the lawsuit, as described in the preceding paragraph, choose to withdraw the appointment and lodge an appeal or interlocutory appeal on their own, and if they fail to provide the said evidence described in the preceding paragraph, the court shall order them to ratify within a set time frame. If such a ratification is not made before the deadline, the court shall rule to reject the appeal or the interlocutory appeal.

In the event that labor mediation procedures should have been conducted for a labor case, the second instance court may not set aside the original judgment on the grounds that the first instance court did not conduct the labor mediation procedures.

In a labor case where part of the judgment fee is temporarily exempted, if the lawsuit, appeal, settlement, or mediation is withdrawn, the judgment fee of which the parties are entitled to a refund, is limited to the excess portion of one third of the judgment fee that should be collected.

When a labor case is pending in litigation, the judge may, in accordance with the extent of case progress, encourage both parties to transfer the case to mediation under agreement.
In the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph, appropriate labor mediators may be selected from among the labor mediators appointed by the court, in accordance with the case requirements, to conduct the mediation first; then, when the mediation has reached a mature stage, the judge may be called upon to join in the mediation.
The High Court and its branch courts may select appropriate persons as labor mediators, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, from among the labor mediators appointed by the local courts within their jurisdiction.