[Unofficial translation from Chinese provided by BHRRC]

“Why Did a Foxconn Worker Lose Her Labor Arbitration?”, Yanwang Beifang, 2 April 2025

On January 30, 2024, Tang Zhenfang, a production line worker who had worked at Foxconn for six and a half years, was dismissed by the company on the grounds of absenteeism after filing complaints to the company union for several consecutive days.

Tang Zhenfang began working at “Sanying Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.” on July 24, 2017, becoming a frontline worker on the Foxconn production line. On December 26, 2023, when signing her third labor contract, she signed an open-ended employment contract with the company.

According to Tang, Foxconn frontline employees typically receive a promotion and pay raise every three years. At the time, she held the “2nd grade staff” position with a base salary of 2,950 yuan. She was supposed to be promoted to “3rd grade staff” in 2024, which should have come with a salary increase ranging from 50 to 500 yuan.

On the afternoon of January 10, 2024, while at work, Tang was verbally informed by her supervisor that her performance rating for 2023 was a “C”. This meant she would not receive a year-end bonus, nor her regular base salary, and—most significantly—would be barred from promotion or pay increases for three years, facing clear discrimination.

Starting from January 22, after informing her line manager, Tang lodged complaints at the Foxconn union for several consecutive days. The union held a mediation meeting that same day in response, but the outcome essentially aligned with the workshop management’s stance. Dissatisfied with the mediation, Tang continued to push the union for resolution over the following days.

January 29 marked the seventh day of Tang’s advocacy at the union. On that day, the Foxconn union again announced the mediation outcome and declared that Tang was dismissed from the company due to absenteeism.

Foxconn claimed that dismissal after three days of absenteeism was part of company policy that Tang had previously been trained on. The company submitted an “Employee Disciplinary Briefing Attendance Sheet” signed with Tang’s name as evidence. However, the handwriting on the sheet was clearly not hers, and forensic analysis confirmed that the signature was forged.

[…] Moreover, the company’s internal policies did not explicitly state that taking leave to visit the union during working hours constitutes absenteeism […]