Verbal Abuse, Assault by Boss, and Even Dismissal... 1 Year and 6 Months Since the Enforcement of the 'Workplace Bullying Prohibition Act', Power Harassment Still Persists

Poor Work Handling... Public Verbal Abuse from Boss
'Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act' 1 Year 6 Months Since Enforcement... Victims Remain Unchanged
Human Rights Commission "Must Introduce Perpetrator Punishment Regulations"

According to "Jikjang Gapjil 119," among the 236 email reports with verified identities in January this year, nearly half, 117 cases, were related to workplace harassment. Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Juhee] It has been a year and a half since the revised Labor Standards Act (Anti-Gapjil Act) prohibiting workplace harassment was enacted, yet many workers are still experiencing harassment or gapjil in the workplace. Punishments for perpetrators are not properly enforced, and secondary damage cases, such as victims who reported harassment being fired, frequently occur.

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) emphasized the need to expand the scope of workplace harassment and introduce punishment regulations for perpetrators.

According to the private public interest organization 'Workplace Gapjil 119,' among 236 email reports with confirmed identities in January this year, nearly half?117 cases?were related to workplace harassment.

However, only 50 of these cases were reported to the company or the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Among those who reported, 12% (6 cases) responded that the company did not fulfill its obligation to take action, and 30% (15 cases) said they suffered disadvantages such as dismissal notices. This means 3 out of 10 reporters experienced disadvantages from their companies.

The most common types of harassment reported were ostracism, discrimination, and retaliation with 63 cases, followed by unfair orders with 60 cases, insults and defamation with 58 cases, and assault and verbal abuse with 51 cases.

The seriousness of workplace harassment is also confirmed by statistics. According to a survey conducted last month by Workplace Gapjil 119 targeting 1,000 workers aged 19 to 55, 34.1% responded that they had experienced workplace harassment in the past year. Although this is slightly lower than the 36% reported in October last year, it remains a significant figure.

Among those who experienced harassment, 37.5% said the harassment was at a "serious level," and about half (45.6%) responded that "harassment has not decreased even after the implementation of the Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act."

According to 'Workplace Bullying 119,' 45.6% of 1,000 office workers responded that "workplace bullying does not seem to have decreased even after the implementation of the Workplace Bullying Prohibition Act." Photo by Yonhap News

Some argue that the reason the Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act has not been effective is due to the lack of clear punishment regulations for perpetrators and the inability to punish companies that fail to take disciplinary actions.

According to a gapjil victim case disclosed by Workplace Gapjil 119, Mr. A, a janitor at a cleaning agency in a district office in Seoul, suffered harassment from his supervisor since joining the company. He was verbally abused with phrases like "You're too old to not be able to do this?" and "Quit immediately, you dog," and was publicly cursed at and even hit on the head with a fist.

Under extreme stress, Mr. A was diagnosed with depression and anxiety at a hospital and demanded disciplinary action against the supervisor and compensation from the company. However, the company only issued a mild disciplinary action of "submitting a written explanation" to the supervisor and instead asked Mr. A to submit a resignation letter. Despite experiencing workplace harassment, the victim was not only denied punishment for the perpetrator but also faced dismissal.

Under the current Labor Standards Act, when workplace harassment occurs, the employer must immediately investigate and take appropriate measures such as changing the victim's work location or ordering paid leave according to the victim's wishes.

However, there are no separate punishment regulations for perpetrators, and there is no way to punish companies that fail to fulfill their obligation to take action, making it difficult to effectively prevent workplace harassment.

As a result, there is a growing call among workers for legal regulations to protect this blind spot.

Mr. Kang, a worker in his 30s, said, "If victims lose their jobs without perpetrators being punished despite experiencing harassment, then the 'Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act' is practically meaningless." He added, "To prevent it from being a 'nominal Anti-Gapjil Act,' protection for victims and definite punishment for perpetrators are most necessary."

In a worker survey, 85.4% agreed with the statement "There should be provisions to punish perpetrators," and 80.2% agreed with "There should be provisions to punish companies that fail to fulfill their obligation to take action."

The NHRCK emphasized the need to expand the scope of workplace harassment and promptly introduce punishment regulations for perpetrators. Previously, in July last year, the NHRCK recommended to the Minister of Employment and Labor four measures: protection of workers from harassment by third parties, expansion of application to workplaces with four or fewer employees, introduction of punishment regulations for perpetrators, and mandatory workplace harassment prevention education.

On the 20th of last month, the NHRCK also urged, "(Although) it has been a year and six months since the related regulations were introduced, workplace harassment is still widespread throughout our society," and added, "Limitations of the law and system have been pointed out, so advanced government measures and prompt legislation by the National Assembly are necessary."

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