When I reported harassment by the boss... Did it just end with a 'self-investigation'?

2022 Guideline Revision... Difficult to Ensure Objectivity in Investigations
"Guidelines Should Be Changed to Have Labor Inspectors Conduct Investigations Directly"

It has been found that perpetrators of workplace harassment who are employers or relatives of employers account for more than 20% of all cases. Despite this, an investigation revealed that these incidents are often internally investigated within the workplace, resulting in inadequate victim recovery.

The civic group Workplace Bullying 119 disclosed on the 17th the results of a quarterly harassment survey conducted last year with 1,000 office workers.

The survey results showed that the respondents who identified the harasser as the employer or a relative of the employer were 25.9% in the first quarter, 27.3% in the second quarter, and 22.5% in the third quarter, all exceeding 20%. Additionally, among 190 confirmed workplace harassment consultations received by the group during January and February this year, 37 cases (19.4%) involved the employer being identified as the harasser.

According to the existing workplace harassment reporting guidelines, if the harasser is the business owner or their relative, the labor inspector is supposed to conduct a direct investigation without an internal workplace inquiry.

Office workers commuting to work Photo by Yonhap News

However, in 2022, the Ministry of Employment and Labor revised the guidelines to require that even if the harasser is the employer, both “direct investigation by the labor inspector and guidance for internal investigation” should be conducted simultaneously. Since the employer also has the obligation to investigate and take action under the Labor Standards Act, the intention is to have the internal investigation conducted within the workplace.

Nevertheless, although the Ministry’s guidelines state that direct investigation by labor inspectors should be conducted concurrently, there is no clear standard to distinguish cases for direct investigation from those for internal investigation guidance, which is reportedly increasing confusion and anxiety among workers. Workplace Bullying 119 pointed out, “In cases of employer harassment, it is inevitably difficult to guarantee the objectivity of investigation and measures through internal workplace investigations.”

According to reports received by Workplace Bullying 119, Mr. A reported harassment by an executive who is the spouse of the company representative to the Labor Office. However, the labor inspector responded, “We will make the final judgment based on the report from the labor law firm appointed by the company,” and ultimately closed the case based on the report submitted by the company-appointed labor attorney stating that “workplace harassment cannot be acknowledged.”

Mr. B also reported harassment by the company representative that lasted over a year to the Labor Office, but later discovered that the labor attorney appointed by the company had been in close communication with the company regarding the report’s contents.

Workplace Bullying 119 emphasized, “Direct reporting to the Labor Office is arguably the last lifeline for victims of employer harassment,” and stressed, “In such cases, the guidelines must be revised to ensure that direct investigations by labor inspectors, rather than just guidance for internal investigations, are conducted.”