[Gwanga in] 'High-Security Facility' Bank of Korea, Controversy Over Illegal Dispatch of Security Guards

Hana Bank Security Outsourcing Contract 'Potential Illegal Dispatch'
Cheonggyeong: "Hana Bank Uses Special Guards Like Regular Guards"
Recent Court Recognizes 'Illegal Dispatch' in Similar Hana Bank Case

Recently, a controversy over 'illegal dispatch' has arisen regarding security duties at the Bank of Korea, classified as a 'top-tier' national security facility. Although the Bank has signed a 'contract for services' with external special security guards (SSGs) who make up a significant portion of the main building's security, it is being pointed out that the work is effectively operated in the form of 'worker dispatch.' This could be considered 'illegal dispatch' under the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, prompting internal caution within the Bank.

According to a comprehensive report by Asia Economy on the 1st, the Bank of Korea's Legal and Regulatory Affairs Office recently drafted and shared a document warning that there are concerns about illegal dispatch related to service contracts used for security duties.

Security at the Bank of Korea is handled by Cheonggyeong (Korean government-employed security officers) who are hired as regular employees. However, since the number of Cheonggyeong alone is insufficient, the Bank relies heavily on special security guards (SSGs) employed by external contractors under service contracts. As of the end of last month, the Bank had 88 Cheonggyeong and 117 SSGs, with more SSGs than Cheonggyeong.

The 'contract for services' that the Bank signs to use SSGs does not require the strict procedures necessary for worker dispatch, such as restrictions on allowable tasks or dispatch periods (maximum two years), or approval from the Minister of Employment and Labor. For this reason, many companies, including the Bank, often enter into service contracts to use external personnel for cost reduction and management efficiency.

However, according to relevant laws and Supreme Court precedents, under a service contract, the contractor cannot directly instruct the workers employed by the subcontractor. If the Bank checks the SSGs' attendance, leave, or work attitude, or gives specific work instructions, it may be judged as worker dispatch rather than a service contract. In other words, although the form is a service contract, in substance it becomes worker dispatch. This constitutes 'illegal dispatch' in violation of the Dispatch Act.

The problem is that, given the current work structure between Cheonggyeong and SSGs within the Bank, there is room to consider it illegal dispatch.

A Cheonggyeong at the Bank said, "Since the control tower for security duties is the situation room where Cheonggyeong work, when a decision is made there, officially it is a 'request for cooperation' to the SSGs, but in reality, it should be seen as an 'instruction.' SSGs have to renew their contracts every year, so it is even more so. In effect, the Bank is using SSGs as if they were Cheonggyeong."

If the Bank's service contract method for SSGs goes to litigation, there is a possibility it will be recognized as illegal dispatch. However, the Bank explained that supervision and command over the security company are permitted under the Security Services Act, and that it operates security personnel in compliance with laws and contract terms. According to precedents, some supervision is allowed under service contracts for security, and the Bank claims it does not exercise unfair supervision to the extent that would be recognized as illegal dispatch.

Labor attorney Lee Hyun-ho of Ido Labor Office explained, "Service contracts require the independence of the contractor, but in reality, when working mixed in the same space, there is a high possibility of receiving supervision and work instructions from the same supervisor, so independence is greatly reduced. In such cases, although formally a service contract, it is often regarded as dispatch in substance."

Recently, courts have issued rulings recognizing illegal dispatch in cases similar to the Bank's. In July last year, the Supreme Court Civil Division 3 (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) ruled that workers of in-house subcontractors at POSCO Gwangyang Steelworks should be recognized as POSCO regular employees. This was because POSCO directly instructed the subcontractor workers, effectively constituting worker dispatch.

In response, the Bank is reportedly cracking down to prevent the illegal dispatch controversy from expanding. The document also pointed out, "Considering the Ministry of Employment and Labor guidelines and Supreme Court positions, if the Bank requests replacement of personnel (SSGs) due to work attitude or insincerity, it may be recognized as illegal dispatch, so caution is necessary."

Even aside from illegal dispatch issues, considering the Bank is a high-level national security facility, there are criticisms that this security structure is inappropriate. In emergencies, Cheonggyeong and SSGs need to respond organically together, but the system that prevents them from intervening in each other's work or working methods could be a constraint.

The Bank is aware of these problems but lacks viable alternatives. Under current law, the best solution is to directly employ all SSGs, but the Bank's authority to decide personnel costs lies with the Ministry of Economy and Finance, not the Bank. Service contracts are processed as business expenses and pose no problem, but direct employment requires discussions with the government.

In the business community, there are also criticisms that the current dispatch and service contract regulations, which are the root cause of such problems, are unreasonable. The Yoon Seok-yeol administration is aware of issues with the Dispatch Act and related regulations and is pushing for improvements, but strong opposition from opposition parties and labor groups makes the realization and timing uncertain.