Listed Company Fined NT$100,000 for Employee Injury, Appeal Denied Despite Claiming Scissors Are Not Sharp Tools
A listed company was fined NT$100,000 (approximately US$3,200) for an employee's finger injury, deemed a violation of occupational safety laws. The company appealed, arguing that appropriate gloves were provided and scissors are not sharp dangerous tools, but the appeal was rejected. This incident highlights the critical importance of providing adequate personal protective equipment and adhering to occupational safety regulations.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 26, 2026 at 14:04
- 🔍 Collected: April 26, 2026 at 14:31 (27 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 26, 2026 at 14:34 (2 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Kao Hua-chien, Taipei, 26th) An operator at a listed company injured a finger while stripping wire with scissors. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that the employer failed to provide appropriate gloves and fined the company NT$100,000 for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The company filed an appeal, stating that cotton gloves had been provided and that ordinary utility scissors are not considered sharp and dangerous tools, and that the injury was due to employee negligence; however, the appeal was rejected.
The Executive Yuan recently announced its appeal decision. On November 11, 2025, an operator at a company in Yongkang District, Tainan City, injured their left index finger with scissors while stripping wire. On November 17, 2025, an OSHA inspection by the Southern Region Occupational Safety and Health Center of the Ministry of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that the company had failed to provide appropriate gloves (cotton gloves were deemed insufficient protection) in accordance with the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities. Therefore, the employer was fined NT$100,000, and the name of the appellant and responsible person were announced.
The company argued in its appeal that it had provided basic protective cotton gloves, which did not impede manual dexterity. It claimed that wearing thick cut-resistant gloves would stiffen fingers and hinder precise work. Furthermore, the company regularly conducted educational training, and equipment maintenance had standard operating procedures. The employee had indeed received protective gloves and used ordinary utility scissors, whose blades are not sharp and dangerous tools. With correct operating standards, injury should not occur, thus attributing the incident to individual operator negligence rather than the company's failure to provide equipment or management shortcomings.
The company stated that the employee's hospitalization was due to the emergency room being full and coordinating with the surgeon's schedule, not because the injury was severe enough to require hospitalization. It argued that the Ministry of Labor's decision to treat a minor injury case as a major occupational disaster and impose a fine violated the principle of proportionality. It also claimed that during the inspection, the labor inspector said that hospitalization was a fact and the penalty would be based on the outcome, disregarding the legal space for employers to be exempted if they had fulfilled considerable obligations. Therefore, the company requested the original disposition be revoked.
The Ministry of Labor refuted this, stating that the company's occupational disaster investigation report clearly indicated that the indirect cause of the accident was "unsafe environment/equipment: using sharp tools with only cotton gloves (insufficient protection)," which explicitly violated the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities.
The Ministry of Labor pointed out that regarding the employer's claim of having implemented employee education and training and equipment inspections, the legislative intent of occupational safety and health education and training and equipment inspection is to prevent occupational disasters, that is, to proactively inspect, discover, and eliminate potential hazards. This differs from the company's responsibility to install safety and health equipment and measures in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the two are different statutory obligations for employers. Therefore, the appellant's arguments are clearly insufficient.
The Executive Yuan's Appeals Review Committee stated that during the OSHA inspection, the company's occupational safety personnel, surnamed Xu, also confirmed in an interview that they would change to using anti-cut gloves with higher protection. The Ministry of Labor's decision to fine the company and announce its name as a listed company, classified as a Category A business unit, for failing to comply with the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities and violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act, was deemed appropriate.
The committee stated that based on the indirect cause of the accident recorded in the occupational disaster investigation report, there was a violation of administrative obligations. If the company believes that wearing thick cut-resistant gloves would stiffen fingers and hinder precise work, it could choose other protective gloves made of materials convenient for operation for employees.
The committee stated that this case did not violate the principle of proportionality. As for whether hospitalization was involved, it concerns whether the employer should notify the labor inspection agency within the prescribed time limit as stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Therefore, the penalty in this case is not related to whether the employee was hospitalized, and the original disposition should be maintained. (Editor: Su Chih-chung) 1150426
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or utilized without authorization.
(Central News Agency reporter Kao Hua-chien, Taipei, 26th) An operator at a listed company injured a finger while stripping wire with scissors. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that the employer failed to provide appropriate gloves and fined the company NT$100,000 for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The company filed an appeal, stating that cotton gloves had been provided and that ordinary utility scissors are not considered sharp and dangerous tools, and that the injury was due to employee negligence; however, the appeal was rejected.
The Executive Yuan recently announced its appeal decision. On November 11, 2025, an operator at a company in Yongkang District, Tainan City, injured their left index finger with scissors while stripping wire. On November 17, 2025, an OSHA inspection by the Southern Region Occupational Safety and Health Center of the Ministry of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration found that the company had failed to provide appropriate gloves (cotton gloves were deemed insufficient protection) in accordance with the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities. Therefore, the employer was fined NT$100,000, and the name of the appellant and responsible person were announced.
The company argued in its appeal that it had provided basic protective cotton gloves, which did not impede manual dexterity. It claimed that wearing thick cut-resistant gloves would stiffen fingers and hinder precise work. Furthermore, the company regularly conducted educational training, and equipment maintenance had standard operating procedures. The employee had indeed received protective gloves and used ordinary utility scissors, whose blades are not sharp and dangerous tools. With correct operating standards, injury should not occur, thus attributing the incident to individual operator negligence rather than the company's failure to provide equipment or management shortcomings.
The company stated that the employee's hospitalization was due to the emergency room being full and coordinating with the surgeon's schedule, not because the injury was severe enough to require hospitalization. It argued that the Ministry of Labor's decision to treat a minor injury case as a major occupational disaster and impose a fine violated the principle of proportionality. It also claimed that during the inspection, the labor inspector said that hospitalization was a fact and the penalty would be based on the outcome, disregarding the legal space for employers to be exempted if they had fulfilled considerable obligations. Therefore, the company requested the original disposition be revoked.
The Ministry of Labor refuted this, stating that the company's occupational disaster investigation report clearly indicated that the indirect cause of the accident was "unsafe environment/equipment: using sharp tools with only cotton gloves (insufficient protection)," which explicitly violated the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities.
The Ministry of Labor pointed out that regarding the employer's claim of having implemented employee education and training and equipment inspections, the legislative intent of occupational safety and health education and training and equipment inspection is to prevent occupational disasters, that is, to proactively inspect, discover, and eliminate potential hazards. This differs from the company's responsibility to install safety and health equipment and measures in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the two are different statutory obligations for employers. Therefore, the appellant's arguments are clearly insufficient.
The Executive Yuan's Appeals Review Committee stated that during the OSHA inspection, the company's occupational safety personnel, surnamed Xu, also confirmed in an interview that they would change to using anti-cut gloves with higher protection. The Ministry of Labor's decision to fine the company and announce its name as a listed company, classified as a Category A business unit, for failing to comply with the Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health Facilities and violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act, was deemed appropriate.
The committee stated that based on the indirect cause of the accident recorded in the occupational disaster investigation report, there was a violation of administrative obligations. If the company believes that wearing thick cut-resistant gloves would stiffen fingers and hinder precise work, it could choose other protective gloves made of materials convenient for operation for employees.
The committee stated that this case did not violate the principle of proportionality. As for whether hospitalization was involved, it concerns whether the employer should notify the labor inspection agency within the prescribed time limit as stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Therefore, the penalty in this case is not related to whether the employee was hospitalized, and the original disposition should be maintained. (Editor: Su Chih-chung) 1150426
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or utilized without authorization.