Economic Sector Raises Voice Again to Clarify the Concept of the Serious Accident Punishment Act

"최고안전책임자 있는 경우
대표이사 면책 의견 제각각"
기업들 수정·보완 요구 빗발
경총도 선진국 보고서 내놔"Divergent Opinions on CEO Exemption When Chief Safety Officer Exists"
Companies Demand Revisions and Supplements
Korea Employers Federation Also Releases Advanced Country Report

"There is no expert who provides clear answers. It is impossible to respond without law firm services." (Company A)

"The interpretations of laws, enforcement decrees, and explanatory manuals appear different. (Omitted) There are concerns about arbitrary interpretations." (Company B)

The controversy surrounding the Serious Accidents Punishment Act continues even as it approaches six months since enforcement. Since the law's provisions are unclear and it is perceived as a uniform and inefficient regulation, economic organizations are voicing calls for amendments and supplements daily. There are suggestions that, considering the punitive measures alone do not have a significant preventive effect, ways to enhance effectiveness should be explored.

According to economic organizations on the 20th, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) collected opinions from member companies and major corporations and submitted recommendations regarding the Serious Accidents Punishment Act to the Ministry of Employment and Labor. They pointed out nine areas requiring revision, including the scope of serious accidents and management responsibility, obligations, and accountability. The most significant issue identified was the ambiguous definition of management responsibility. The FKI stated, "Many companies ask whether the CEO's responsibility can be exempted if there is a Chief Safety Officer (CSO) who holds final authority over personnel and budget related to safety and health, but experts' opinions vary," adding, "Since the Serious Accidents Punishment Act imposes severe penalties, demands for clarity are inevitably strict."

Members of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions marched toward Yeouido on March in front of the Korea Employers Federation building in Daehyeong-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, demanding the identification of the truth and punishment of those responsible for the Yeocheon NCC explosion accident, as well as the establishment of measures for serious disasters.

They also requested a reasonable definition of serious accidents. They pointed out concerns that the law does not consider the severity of accidents, potentially including minor illnesses recoverable with outpatient treatment only. Additionally, expressions such as 'necessary' and 'faithfully' in the law are unclear and should be removed. They argued that it is unrealistic for the primary contractor, who lacks command and supervision authority, to bear the same obligations toward subcontracted workers.

An analysis was also presented showing that countries with lower punishment levels for industrial accidents have fewer fatal accidents. The Korea Employers Federation released a report analyzing cases from the UK, Germany, the US, and Japan, concluding that encouraging autonomous safety management by companies and workplaces in the field of industrial safety and health is better than the uniform approach seen in Korea. They pointed out that, unlike Korea, these countries actively listen to corporate opinions and efficiently operate administrative organizations through data analysis rather than having the government unilaterally lead policy-making related to industrial accident prevention.

Choo Kwang-ho, head of the Economic Headquarters at the FKI, said, "Companies are doing their best to prevent safety accidents at industrial sites, but they are experiencing confusion and difficulties in understanding and responding to the current Serious Accidents Punishment Act," adding, "To reduce confusion and enhance the effectiveness of accident prevention, the law should be improved, and furthermore, a paradigm shift from post-punishment to preemptive prevention should be sought."