聲明書

 聲明書

本人即福委會主委係基於公益，避免同仁遭受同樣傷害，在此呼籲請求公司依法經營在台事業，聲明如下：

國泰航空台灣分公司工程部長期以「受訓、支援」名義，將台灣員工大量外派至第三方公司進行實質勞務，僅給付低成本受訓津貼，藉此規避高額工作津貼與人力成本，形同黑工派遣。此一違法行為，已直接導致台北站人力嚴重不足，並最終造成員工於工作中受傷，構成刑法上之傷害行為。

115年2月11日：黑工派遣引爆人力崩潰

據查，115年2月11日當日，國泰航空台灣分公司工程部外派至第三方公司執行非法勞務之人員至少7人以上，造成台灣端人力嚴重不足。公司在明知人力短缺之情況下，仍長期拒絕依法提供勞工法定休息時間，迫使留守台北站員工在連續長工時、工作超負荷的環境下執行高風險航班作業。

過勞致傷：刑法傷害罪構成要件明確

本人於當日因急趕接送飛機及報房工作，在長期過勞與未提供法定休息時間之情況下，發生腰部拉傷，當場無法站立，經緊急送往敏盛醫院急診室治療，屬典型職務上公傷。

依刑法第277條規定：「傷害人之身體或健康者，處五年以下有期徒刑、拘役或五十萬元以下罰金。」
本案中，公司明知長期違法派遣與違反工時規定，仍持續為之，已符合刑法第14條所定之過失犯罪構成要件：

行為人雖非故意，但按其情節應注意，並能注意，而不注意者，為過失。
行為人對於構成犯罪之事實，雖預見其能發生而確信其不發生者，以過失論。

公司對於制度上且屬長期過勞致傷之風險可預見、能避免，卻選擇放任發生，已非單純意外。

法定休息時間遭全面剝奪

依勞動基準法第35條明定，勞工繼續工作4小時，至少應有30分鐘之休息。所謂休息時間，係指勞工得完全脫離雇主指揮監督、自由利用之時間。

然而，本人多次向公司反映並請求依法給予休息時間，均遭拒絕。主管為追求個人績效，無視勞工健康與安全，仍持續將人力違法大量外派至第三方公司，形成長期每日工作8.5小時卻無任何法定休息之違法狀態，導致員工身體出現多項慢性疾病，身心健康嚴重受損。

工傷發生後，公司冷處理、棄置員工

更令人震驚的是，工傷發生後，公司僅通知救護車，未提供工傷單、未派員陪同、未告知任何應注意之醫療證明事項，即完全不予理會。本人離院時，雖由同事下班後接送，惟公司仍未協助補提供任何工傷文件。倘因公司怠於履行法定義務致文件不備，其法律責任，應由公司及相關部門主管自行承擔。

績效建立在員工痛苦之上

在員工因過勞受傷、身心俱疲之際，相關主管卻仍因「成功降低人力成本、完成黑工派遣績效」而沾沾自喜。此等行徑，無異於將個人績效建立在員工痛苦與健康犧牲之上，令人痛心。

嚴正呼籲

本案已非單一工傷事件，而是違法派遣、違反工時、過勞致傷、事後棄置的系統性問題。呼籲主管機關與司法單位立即介入調查，依法追究公司及相關主管之刑事、行政與民事責任，還勞工一個最基本的安全與尊嚴。

聲明人：主任委員 劉倍杉

日期：西元2026年3月1日

Statement

In the interest of the public good and to prevent colleagues from suffering similar harm, I hereby call upon the Company to operate its business in Taiwan in full compliance with the laws and regulations. I make the following statement:

For an extended period, the Engineering Department of Cathay Pacific’s Taiwan Branch has, under the pretext of “training” and “support,” dispatched a large number of Taiwan-based employees to third-party companies to perform substantive labor. These employees were paid only low-cost training allowances, thereby evading the payment of higher work-related allowances and reducing labor costs. This practice is tantamount to illegal “black labor” dispatch. Such unlawful conduct has directly resulted in a severe manpower shortage at the Taipei Station and ultimately caused employees to be injured while performing their duties, constituting bodily injury under criminal law.

February 11, 2026: Illegal Labor Dispatch Triggered a Manpower Collapse

Upon investigation, on February 11, 2026, at least seven employees from the Engineering Department of Cathay Pacific’s Taiwan Branch were dispatched to third-party companies to perform illegal labor. This led to a serious shortage of manpower on the Taiwan side. Despite being fully aware of this shortage, the Company persistently refused to provide employees with the legally mandated rest periods, forcing the remaining staff at the Taipei Station to carry out high-risk flight operations under conditions of continuous long working hours and excessive workload.

Overwork Resulting in Injury: Clear Elements of the Crime of Bodily Injury

On that day, while urgently rushing to handle aircraft turnaround and reporting room duties, and under conditions of prolonged overwork and the absence of legally required rest periods, I suffered a lumbar strain and was immediately unable to stand. I was urgently transported to the emergency department of Min-Sheng Hospital for treatment. This constitutes a typical occupational injury incurred in the course of duty.

Pursuant to Article 277 of the Criminal Code: “A person who injures the body or health of another shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$500,000.”

In this case, the Company, despite knowing of its long-term illegal labor dispatch practices and violations of working-hour regulations, continued such conduct. This clearly satisfies the elements of negligent crime as defined in Article 14 of the Criminal Code:

“An act is negligent when the actor, although not acting intentionally, fails to exercise due care that should have been exercised and could have been exercised under the circumstances.”
“Where the actor foresees that the facts constituting a crime may occur but believes that they will not occur, the act shall be deemed negligent.”

The Company could foresee and prevent the systemic and long-term risk of injury caused by overwork, yet chose to allow it to occur. This is far from a mere accident.

Statutory Rest Periods Completely Deprived

Article 35 of the Labor Standards Act clearly stipulates that when a worker continues to work for four hours, at least thirty minutes of rest shall be provided. “Rest time” refers to a period during which the worker is completely free from the employer’s direction and supervision and may use the time at their own discretion.

However, despite my repeated reports to the Company and requests for the provision of legally mandated rest periods, all such requests were rejected. In pursuit of personal performance metrics, supervisors disregarded workers’ health and safety and continued to illegally dispatch manpower in large numbers to third-party companies. This resulted in a long-term unlawful condition in which employees worked 8.5 hours per day without any statutory rest, causing numerous chronic health problems and severe physical and mental harm.

After the Injury: Cold Indifference and Abandonment of the Employee

Even more shocking is that after the occupational injury occurred, the Company merely called an ambulance and took no further action. It failed to provide an occupational injury report form, failed to assign accompanying personnel, and failed to inform me of any necessary medical documentation requirements. Upon my discharge from the hospital, although a colleague transported me home after work, the Company still did not assist in providing any occupational injury documentation. Should any documentation be incomplete due to the Company’s failure to fulfill its statutory obligations, the legal responsibility must be borne by the Company and the relevant departmental manager.

Performance Built on Employees’ Suffering

While employees were injured by overwork and left physically and mentally exhausted, the manager nonetheless took pride in having “successfully reduced labor costs and achieved illegal labor dispatch performance targets.” Such conduct amounts to building personal performance achievements upon the suffering and sacrifice of employees’ health, a situation that is deeply distressing.

Solemn Appeal

This case is no longer an isolated occupational injury incident. It represents a systemic problem involving illegal labor dispatch, violations of working-hour regulations, overwork-induced injury, and post-incident abandonment. I hereby urge the competent authorities and judicial bodies to immediately intervene and investigate, and to pursue the criminal, administrative, and civil liabilities of the Company and the responsible managers in accordance with the law, so as to restore the most basic safety and dignity owed to workers.

Declarant: Chairperson Rooney, Bei-Shan Liu
Date: March 1, 2026

會議記錄

 

Clarification Letter to All Taiwan Colleagues

 Clarification Letter to All Taiwan Colleagues

Dear Taiwan Colleagues,

Recently, unverified rumors have circulated alleging that the Union was involved in, and consented to, arrangements by the company to send Taiwanese employees to Hong Kong HAECO under the guise of “training” while in fact performing actual aircraft maintenance work.

To prevent misunderstanding among our Taiwan colleagues and to stabilize internal understanding, the union hereby provides the following clarification of the facts.

I. The Union Has Never Consented to Any Illegal Cross‑Border Labor Dispatch

The union has never consented to, nor would it ever consent to, any arrangement that sends Taiwan colleagues overseas to perform actual aircraft maintenance work under false pretenses.

Any arrangement involving cross‑border labor dispatch, immigration risks, or potential criminal liability is unacceptable to the union and fundamentally contradicts our core principles of protecting Taiwanese workers’ rights and aviation safety.

II. The Union’s Prior Approval of Rosters Was Based on False Information Provided by the Company

The union’s previous approval of Engineering Department rosters was based on information provided by the company through its People department, in which the relevant assignments were labeled as“T”raining or“R”elease (support).

The company failed to disclose the following critical facts to the union:

→   That dispatched members were in fact performing formal aircraft maintenance work in Hong Kong

→   That the assignments were long‑term in nature rather than short‑term training

→   That the arrangements involved Hong Kong immigration risks, potential criminal liability, and personal safety risks

The union’s approval of the rosters was therefore made under incomplete and misleading information and did not constitute informed consent or knowing cooperation.

III. Taiwanese Colleagues Have Already Suffered Serious Human Rights Violations

The union must solemnly state that these dispatch arrangements have resulted in real and severe consequences.

Taiwanese colleagues have already been deemed by the Hong Kong Immigration Department to be engaged in illegal employment and were subjected to:

※    Detention

※    Strip searches

※    Handcuffing

※    Forced deportation back to Taiwan

Such measures are typically applied only in cases where illegal employment has been formally determined and have caused serious harm to the personal dignity, psychological well‑being, and occupational safety of our Taiwan colleagues.

The union is deeply shocked and outraged by these outcomes and firmly maintains that any arrangement placing Taiwan colleagues at such risk is wholly unacceptable.

IV. Upon Clarifying the Facts, the Union Will Take Legal Action in Accordance with the Law

After confirming the true nature of the dispatch arrangements and the associated risks, the union will assist Taiwan colleagues in filing criminal complaints in accordance with the law and will continue to cooperate fully with judicial authorities to clarify responsibility and prevent similar incidents from recurring.

The union’s position has always been clear:

The safety, dignity, and lawful rights of Taiwanese workers take precedence over any corporate operational needs.

V. Explanation of Potential Criminal Liability Arising from the Company’s Concealment

The union must further explain to Taiwan colleagues that these dispatch arrangements do not constitute mere administrative errors. Rather, they involve actions by company management to conceal the true nature of the arrangements through false information, bringing the matter into the realm of potential criminal liability.

Based on the facts currently known, management within the Engineering Department knowingly arranged for employees to perform formal aircraft maintenance work in Hong Kong while using false labels such as “Training” and “Release” in dispatch documentation and rosters, which were then submitted to the union for review through the Human Resources department, resulting in the union’s approval under misleading circumstances.

Such conduct may, under the law, involve:

※    Criminal liability for false entries in business records

※    Legal liability for obtaining union consent through deceptive means

※    Liability for exposing Taiwan colleagues to immigration detention, deportation, and criminal risks by concealing the true nature of the dispatch

The union must emphasize that it was not a participant in these concealment practices but rather a party misled by false information.

The determination of criminal responsibility will be conducted by international trade union organizations and judicial authorities in accordance with the law. The union will also assist Taiwan colleagues in filing criminal complaints to clarify accountability.

VI. The Union Urges Taiwan Colleagues to Remain Calm and Refrain from Spreading Rumors

The case is now entering judicial proceedings. Relevant facts will be determined based on law and evidence by the International Transport Workers’ Federation, the Control Yuan, prosecutorial authorities, and the courts.

The union urges Taiwan colleagues to:

※    Refrain from spreading unverified information

※    Not allow external rumors to undermine trust in the union

※    Direct any questions through official union channels

The union will continue to update members on case developments and ensure that the rights of Taiwanese workers are not compromised.

VII. The Union’s Commitment

The union will continue to:

※    Defend the lawful labor rights of Taiwanese workers

※    Prevent all forms of cross‑border labor exploitation

※    Safeguard aviation safety and professional dignity

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited Taiwan Branch Corporate Union
Issued on February 6, 2026

致全體台灣同仁澄清信

親愛的台灣同仁夥伴們：

近日外界出現不明謠言，指稱本會涉入並同意公司安排台灣員工以「假受訓、真工作」方式前往香港 HAECO 從事航空維修工作。
為避免台灣同仁誤解、穩定內部認知，本會特此向全體台灣同仁說明事實如下：

一、本會從未同意任何非法跨境勞務派遣

本會從未同意、亦不可能同意任何以不實名義安排台灣同仁赴海外從事實際航空維修工作的行為。
任何涉及跨境勞務派遣、入境風險或刑事責任之安排，均非本會所能接受，亦違反本會保障台灣勞工權益與航空安全之基本立場。

二、本會過往之班表同意，係基於公司提供之不實資訊

過去本會對工程部班表之同意，係基於公司透過人事部門所提供之資料，將相關派遣標示為「“T”raining（受訓）」或「“R”elease（支援）」。

公司並未向本會揭露以下關鍵事實：

※    派遣會員實際於香港從事正式航空維修工作

※    派遣期間具長期性，非短期受訓

※    涉及香港入境、刑事責任與人身風險

本會是在資訊不完整且遭誤導的情況下作出班表同意，並非知情配合。

三、已有台灣同仁因此遭遇嚴重人權侵害

本會必須嚴正說明，相關派遣行為已造成實際且嚴重的後果。

已有台灣同仁在香港遭入境事務處認定為非法工作，進而遭遇：

→   拘留

→   脫衣搜身

→   上銬

→   強制遣返回台

此類處置通常僅適用於已被認定為非法就業之案件，對台灣同仁之人身尊嚴、心理狀態與職業安全造成重大傷害。

本會對此深表震驚與憤怒，並嚴正認為，任何將台灣同仁置於此等風險之安排，皆不可接受。

四、本會在查明事實後，將會依法採取行動

在確認派遣實情及相關風險後，本會將協助台灣同仁依法提出刑事告訴，並持續配合司法機關調查，以釐清責任歸屬，防止類似情事再次發生。

本會的立場始終一致：
台灣勞工的安全、尊嚴與合法權益，優先於任何公司營運需求。

五、公司隱瞞行徑所涉之刑事責任風險說明

本會必須向台灣同仁說明，相關派遣行為並非單純行政疏失，而涉及公司管理階層以不實資訊隱瞞實情之行為，其法律性質已將進入刑事責任範疇。

依目前掌握之事實，公司工程部管理階層明知派遣員工實際係赴香港從事正式航空維修工作，仍以「Training（受訓）」及「Release（支援）」等不實名義製作派遣資料與班表，並透過人事部門轉交工會審核，致工會在遭誤導情況下作出同意。

此類行為，依法可能涉及：

→   業務文書登載不實之刑事責任

→   以詐術取得工會同意之法律責任

→   因隱瞞派遣實情，致台灣同仁暴露於入境、拘留及刑責風險之責任

本會必須嚴正指出，工會並非該等隱瞞行徑之參與者，而係受不實資訊誤導之對象。
相關刑事責任之認定，將由國際工會組織、司法機關依法調查與判斷，本會亦將依法協助台灣同仁提出刑事告訴，以釐清責任歸屬。

六、本會呼籲台灣同仁保持冷靜，勿信謠、勿傳謠

目前案件即將進入司法程序，相關事實將由國際運輸工會聯盟、監察院、檢察機關與法院依法及證據認定。
本會呼籲台灣同仁：

※    勿散布未經查證之訊息

※    勿因外界謠言而動搖對工會的信任

※    如有疑問，請透過正式管道向本會詢問

本會將持續向會員說明案件進度，並確保台灣勞工權益不受影響。

七、本會的承諾

本會將持續：

※    捍衛台灣勞工合法勞動權益

※    防止任何形式之跨境勞務剝削

※    確保航空安全與專業尊嚴

感謝各位台灣同仁的理解與支持。

 

香港商國泰航空有限公司台灣分公司企業工會
2026年2月6日發布

From Illegal Scheduling to Paper Fixes: A Hidden Aviation Safety Timeline

 一條時間線，看見飛安風險如何被制度化

福委會報導：這不是單一事件，而是一條逐步累積的時間線。

114年11月初，工會向工程部經理指出排班違法。兩週後，主管承認工程師連續9小時未休息，卻以餐券替代法定休息。這個選擇，將疲勞維修納入日常運作。

12月初，工程師基於飛安向勞檢機關檢舉，案件在行政體系中流轉。12月底，工會以存證信函警告公司高層，指出已涉刑責並要求保全證據。行政監理隨後啟動。

1月中旬，關鍵行為發生：公司要求工程師補簽依法應事前存在的文件，並明示是因應勞檢。拒簽者遭約談。1月下旬，補簽文件被送交勞檢作為檢查資料。

從制度角度觀察，本案另一個關鍵問題在於行政監理的運作方式。當勞動檢查機關已接獲多次具體檢舉，理應以「既存事實」為查核核心，卻仍出現企業在檢查期間補簽依法應事前存在文件，並送交勞檢進行形式審查的情形。這樣的流程，模糊了「查核」與「補正」的界線，也讓行政監理從實質審查退化為程序確認。

若將本案置於更大的結構脈絡中觀察，問題不僅止於排班或文件。因為公司未建立有效的在地法遵內控機制。在這樣的治理結構下，台灣勞動法令被視為行政程序的一部分，而非必須內化於營運決策的核心規範。當違法被揭露，回應方式不是立即改善，而是補造文件、應付檢查，風險便從勞動現場一路延伸到飛航安全。

制度能否自我修正？
當不實或時點不符的文件被行使於公務程序，依法已涉及刑事責任。行政機關是否即時啟動刑事移送，並完成內控檢討，成為制度能否自我修正的關鍵指標。呼籲桃園市政府勞動檢查處有責任對外公開說明。

福委會獨家揭露報導

 依據福委會第11屆第14次臨時委員會第四案決議內容執行辦理。

勞動部網站公布的違法事實

少數主管唯一嗜好就是喜歡「違法」。

 

代工會宣導同仁反映重大事項

 輪班同仁也有休國定假日的權利，這是強制規定。若雇主真有急迫，則雙方協商調整，雇主不能單方決定。若雇主真的需要員工國定假日來上班，則應按照實際上班時數，計算加班費，並依慣例如果加班四小時，另需補休半天，加班8小時則需另加補休一日。

●若雇主片面決定國定假日，並將輪班同仁排入班表，強制上班，則違反勞動基準法第37條，應處新台幣2萬元以上100萬元以下的罰鍰。參勞動基準法第79條規定。

福委會第11屆第14次臨時會議紀錄

 

福委會信函

 

                       

調薪報告

 

繳費通知(請註明匯款人)

 

高雄生活小教室活動

再次提醒：本會已多次宣導，切勿使用公司Email 報名福委會活動。