Scope of Safety Officer Responsibility... Companies' 'Serious Accident Act Phobia'

Ignoring Calls to Specify Mandatory Regulations
Varied Punishments Depending on Cases
Confusion Inevitable... Construction Industry on Alert

[Asia Economy Reporters Inho Yoo and Kiho Sung] The Serious Accidents Punishment Act (Serious Accidents Act) will be submitted to the National Assembly plenary session on the afternoon of the 8th. The companies' demands to at least raise the minimum penalty for business owners were ultimately not accepted. Requests to specify the mandatory regulations that business owners must comply with were also ignored. Although the enforcement of the law is imminent, many ambiguous provisions remain, making prolonged confusion inevitable at corporate sites.

According to political circles on the 8th, the first subcommittee of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly approved the Serious Accidents Act the day before. Although the bill is passed after many twists and turns, temporary legislative measures will inevitably cause confusion for the time being.

The most controversial issue is the scope of punishment. The ruling and opposition parties agreed to change the responsible parties for serious industrial accidents from "CEO and directors" to "CEO or persons in charge of safety and health affairs." It remains unclear who is responsible in which situations, leaving room for interpretation.

An official from the Korea Employers Federation explained, "There have been many inquiries from companies regarding this part during the legislative process of the Serious Accidents Act. However, since the bill itself is not clear, if the exact scope of responsibility is not confirmed through enforcement ordinances, it is currently difficult to make a judgment."

For example, in the case of Company A, there is a director in charge of safety, but this director is responsible only for safety management at some regional business sites. If a safety accident occurs at a local factory of Company A, the question arises whether the safety director, who manages only some regional sites, should be held responsible for this location as well. If the Industrial Safety and Health Act (ISHA), which defines the person responsible for safety at the workplace as the factory manager, and the Serious Accidents Act are applied simultaneously, the safety director and factory manager could be punished under ISHA, and the business owner under the Serious Accidents Act in case of a safety accident. A representative from Company A said, "Even if enforcement ordinances defining the scope of responsibility are issued, confusion is inevitable until cases are confirmed through investigations and court rulings. We are also concerned about judicial risks such as lawsuits and accusations against the CEO."

The construction industry, where it is practically impossible for the CEO or safety managers to oversee every individual site, is on high alert. Due to the nature of the industry, with numerous large and small sites scattered nationwide and subcontractors participating directly in processes rather than just supplying materials, it is very difficult for headquarters to manage and supervise these sites. According to the Korea Construction Association, as of last year, the top 10 large construction companies have an average of 270 sites per company (including 67 overseas sites). Even construction companies outside the top 100 have an average of 32 sites.

A representative from Company B said, "It is practically and physically impossible for the CEO to oversee each site individually to prevent accidents. For large construction companies, even a two-month suspension of business can cause losses of several hundred billion won, and a two-year suspension would effectively halt corporate activities."

A representative from Company C also lamented, "In large apartment complex sites, more than 1,000 workers may be deployed daily, most of whom are subcontractor personnel. Unless headquarters staff manage and supervise them one-on-one, achieving 'zero accident rate' is practically impossible."

Another issue is whether causality between violation of obligations and serious accidents can be clearly proven when applying the Serious Accidents Act. For punishment, it must be determined that there is fault beyond mere violation of obligations. However, clear obligations have not been established. A political official pointed out, "There are no clear regulations on safety management obligations. If business owners, fearing punishment in case of serious accidents, file constitutional complaints, prolonged confusion may continue until accident resolution."

An official from the Federation of Construction Associations also stated, "When formulating policies, the focus should be on preventing serious accidents rather than imposing harsh punishments on companies. If regulatory-only policies that threaten the survival of companies are repeatedly implemented, it will have the adverse effect of lowering the quality of production sites."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.