"Apartment Residents' Association President's Power Abuse Also Recognized"…Court Broadens Scope of Workplace Harassment

Jikgang Gapjil 119 Publishes 'Case Analysis Report'
Recognizes Damages to 'Special Type Workers' Excluded from Law

#Mr. A, who worked as a caddie at a golf course, made an extreme choice due to insults and appearance disparagement from his superior. The court ruled, "If physical or mental suffering is caused or the working environment is worsened by exploiting superiority in workplace status or relationships, the victim does not necessarily have to be an employee."

There is an increasing number of rulings broadly recognizing the scope of workplace harassment and civil liability for torts.

Photo by Asia Economy DB

On the 8th, the civic group Workplace Bullying 119 published the "2023 Workplace Harassment Case Analysis Report," analyzing 87 related rulings including Supreme Court precedents and lower court decisions.

According to the report, courts are showing a trend of broadly recognizing the judgment of workplace harassment and the legitimacy and scope of disciplinary actions.

Under the current Labor Standards Act, the prohibition of workplace harassment does not apply to "workers who have not entered into labor contracts," such as special employment, platform workers, consignment contracts, freelancers, and workplaces with fewer than five employees.

However, courts recognize workplace harassment even for victims who are not employees under the Labor Standards Act, such as caddies and reserve crew members.

There was also a ruling recognizing civil tort liability for workplace harassment by an apartment residents' representative president, who is not in an employment contract relationship.

In July this year, the Seoul Central District Court recognized 4 million won in damages for a case where the apartment residents' representative president requested the affiliated company of a front desk employee to issue a standby transfer or reassignment order.

There have also been rulings affirming that the dismissal of a "power-abusing superior" is justified. In February 2021, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that the dismissal of a superior who made sexist verbal abuse and threw pens at employees was justified.

In February, the Suwon District Court judged that the company’s dismissal of a perpetrator who had engaged in persistent power harassment and verbal sexual harassment toward the victim for eight months was justified.

Additionally, rulings have been made holding employers liable for damages when companies fail to take preventive measures against workplace harassment.

Attorney Kang Eun-hee of Workplace Bullying 119 said, "Legal responsibility is actively recognized not only for the harassers but also for the company," adding, "Compliance with the company's obligations to address workplace harassment and proactive, victim-centered resolution of incidents are necessary for the company to be considered as having fulfilled its duties."

Labor consultant Jang Jong-su of Workplace Bullying 119 emphasized, "It is a natural result that courts recognize harassment not only against employees covered by the law but also non-employees," and stressed, "Now is the time for amendments to the Labor Standards Act to eliminate blind spots."