An employee stated that because he frequently needs to transport supplies for various activities, the shock absorbers of his personal vehicle have reached the point of needing replacement. For this reason, he asked the company to cover the cost of the relevant parts. The question is: does the company bear responsibility for this? The vehicle itself is older, and the company is aware that the employee also uses the same vehicle for a significant amount of non-work-related matters.

Factual Background and Points of Dispute

The employee claims that frequent material transport is the direct cause of the shock absorber damage, and therefore hopes the company will pay for the replacement parts. However, the company has two concerns: first, the vehicle itself is old, and the wear may not be entirely caused by work use; second, the employee has many non-work-related driving activities, which may also contribute to vehicle wear and tear.

Key Factors in Determining Responsibility

In similar situations, whether responsibility is established usually depends on the following factors:

  • Work Relevance:Is the vehicle wear directly and primarily caused by work-assigned tasks?
  • Usage Ratio:What is the proportion of frequency or mileage between work use and non-work use?
  • Company Policy:Are there written regulations or practices that clearly specify whether the company bears such repair costs?
  • Vehicle Condition:Is the repair due to normal aging, or was the damage accelerated by specific work loads?

Currently, the company has not provided any written policy or verbal commitment indicating its willingness to bear costs for wear and tear on employees' personal vehicles. At the same time, the employee has not provided evidence proving that the shock absorber damage was entirely caused by work transport, rather than other factors such as road conditions, driving habits, or vehicle aging.

Legal and Practical Perspectives

In labor law practice, unless there is a clear agreement or the company voluntarily commits, repair costs incurred by employees using their own vehicles for work tasks are generally not considered a legal obligation of the company. However, if the company requires employees to use personal vehicles and does not provide subsidies, it may be considered a "work-related expense" and must be assessed based on the specific circumstances.

Furthermore, if the employee can demonstrate that work use accounts for a significant proportion of total vehicle use, and the repair has a direct causal relationship with work load, the company may bear part of the costs out of goodwill or willingness to negotiate. However, given that the vehicle is old and there is substantial non-work use, the company's complete refusal or request for proportional sharing is a reasonable position.

Recommendations and Next Steps

To avoid similar disputes, it is recommended that the company:

  1. Clearly establish a policy for compensation or reimbursement when employees use personal vehicles for official duties (e.g., mileage-based subsidies, or limited support for direct damage caused by work).
  2. Require employees, in such cases, to provide repair documentation, work trip records, and vehicle usage logs to assess the causal relationship.
  3. Communicate with the employee to negotiate whether costs can be shared based on the proportion of work use, or provide a one-time compensation as a settlement.

Currently, the company has no legal obligation to pay for the employee's shock absorber replacement costs, but it may negotiate with the employee based on principles of fairness. The final decision should be based on factual evidence and company policy, not unilateral claims.