Business Community: "The Enforcement Decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act is also Ambiguous, Are We Supposed to Comply on Our Own..."

Confusion Over Unclear Provisions in Enforcement Decree
"Frustration Over 'Adequate' Budget for Safety and Health Management
Position Requires Compliance with the Law"

[Asia Economy Reporters Choi Dae-yeol, Hwang Yoon-joo] "What exactly is the appropriate budget and adequate manpower level? The law is vague, so we expected the enforcement decree to contain specific details, but it seems to say that if companies don't ‘manage well on their own,’ they will be ‘punished.’"

This is the comment of an economic organization official who reviewed the draft enforcement decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (Serious Accidents Punishment Act) on the 9th. After the law's provisions were disclosed in January, frontline industrial sites and legal circles expected the enforcement decree to include detailed content, as the scope of accidents, responsibilities, and management accountability regulations were considered too ambiguous. However, many provisions in the enforcement decree remain unclear, and confusion in the industry is unlikely to dissipate easily. The business community condemned the omission of repeatedly requested content during the discussion process and decided to submit a joint petition to government ministries promptly.

A representative issue is the stipulation that the budget for the safety and health management system be set at an ‘appropriate’ level. The relevant law delegates this to the enforcement decree. For serious public accidents that may occur in public facilities or mass transportation, the necessary personnel must also be deployed at an appropriate level. Although the government stated it would supplement this with detailed guidelines, critics argue that defining guidelines that can arbitrarily modify what the law delegates to the enforcement decree is itself problematic.

Yoo Il-ho, Head of Employment and Labor Policy Team at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said, "They say that because there is no delegation clause in the law, specific details were not included, but from the perspective of companies that must comply with the law, this is frustrating."

Jang Sang-yoon, Director of the Social Coordination Office at the Office for Government Policy Coordination, is giving a preliminary briefing on the legislative notice of the Enforcement Decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act at the Government Seoul Office in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 9th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Responsibility Subject Also 'Management Responsible Person, etc.'
Open to Various Interpretations

The business community points out that the responsible party is still unclear. The term ‘management responsible person, etc.’ specified in the law can be interpreted in various ways. Since imprisonment and fines can be imposed simultaneously and the punishment level is high, including punitive damages, the responsible party should be clearly defined, but this was not done.

Jeon Seung-tae, Head of Industrial Safety Team at the Korea Employers Federation, said, "Since the business representative is defined as ‘or’ the safety and health officer, both the corporate representative and the chairperson of the company’s safety and health organization can be punished, and depending on interpretation, the safety and health officer may not be considered a management responsible person," adding, "Companies will no longer need to appoint safety and health officers as directors to expand their authority."

The clause on the obligation to secure safety and health in the serious accident crime requirements is also controversial. Companies must take necessary management measures to fulfill obligations under safety and health-related laws. However, the enforcement decree does not specifically state which safety and health-related laws apply under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. An industry official said, "It means that the business operator must determine on their own what the safety and health-related laws are," adding, "This implies that the government will apply the law arbitrarily, which is problematic for a law that criminally punishes management responsible persons for over a year with room for interpretation."

As requested by the business community, chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases have been excluded from occupational diseases, but since severity criteria have not been established, confusion at the frontline is inevitable. Without setting standards such as treatment for more than six months, even mild illnesses could be considered serious accidents. Some also question whether it is appropriate to classify certain diseases like heatstroke as serious accidents.

Additionally, the business community argues that provisions requiring management responsible persons to receive 20 hours of education simply because a serious industrial accident occurred, regardless of guilt, and the lack of exemption clauses for accidents caused by individual negligence despite management fulfilling their duties, also need to be revised.

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