Delivers Proposal on Serious Accident Punishment Act for Effectiveness to Ministry of Labor

"Serious Accident Punishment Act, Definitions of Management Responsibility and Others Must Be Clarified"

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Sun-mi] The Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) has raised concerns about the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, stating that there are many unclear points such as the scope and targets of 'management responsibility persons, etc.' and the definition of 'standards for management costs for safety and health,' and called for improvements.

On the 20th, the FKI announced that it had submitted a proposal titled "Suggestions for Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act" to the Ministry of Employment and Labor after collecting opinions from member companies and major corporations. The proposal presented improvement tasks on a total of nine issues: ▲definition of serious industrial accidents, ▲definition of serious public accidents, ▲definition of management responsibility persons, etc., ▲obligations of management responsibility persons, etc. to ensure safety and health, ▲obligations to ensure safety and health in subcontracting relationships, ▲attendance of safety and health education, ▲obligations of workers, ▲punishment of management responsibility persons, etc., and ▲liability for damages.

The FKI pointed out that the most significant problem is the ambiguous definition of management responsibility persons, etc. The FKI stated, "Many companies ask whether the CEO’s responsibility can be exempted if there is a Chief Safety Officer (CSO) who has the final authority over personnel and budget related to safety and health, but expert opinions vary on this matter," adding, "Since the Serious Accidents Punishment Act imposes severe penalties, demands for clarity are inevitably strict." Therefore, it proposed that the enforcement decree clearly define that the Chief Safety Officer (CSO), who has been delegated all authority and responsibility regarding serious accidents, can be regarded as a management responsibility person, etc.

It also suggested that the definitions of serious industrial accidents and serious public accidents should be rationally regulated. The Serious Accidents Punishment Act defines serious industrial accidents as cases where three or more occupational disease patients occur within one year, but the FKI pointed out that this does not consider the severity of the accident, raising concerns that minor illnesses recoverable with outpatient treatment might be included as serious accidents. Furthermore, it requested that terms such as 'specific raw materials' and 'defects in design, manufacture, installation, or management,' which define serious public accidents, be specifically defined as to what they mean.

The FKI expressed concerns that unclear concepts in the law and enforcement decree could cause side effects during law enforcement and requested the deletion of abstract expressions such as 'necessary,' 'faithfully,' and 'diligently' from the enforcement decree. It also pointed out that the 'standards for management costs for safety and health' are not specified, and the scope of 'safety and health-related laws' is unclear, allowing for arbitrary interpretation. Therefore, it proposed that the Ministry of Employment and Labor Minister should present standards for management costs and that related laws should be specifically stipulated in the enforcement decree.

The FKI criticized the impracticality of the primary contractor, who is not in an employment relationship and cannot exercise specific command and supervision, having the same obligations for subcontracted workers. It especially expressed concerns that direct instructions on work behavior to subcontracted workers could be considered illegal dispatch under the Dispatch Act. Therefore, it proposed limiting the primary contractor’s obligation to ensure safety and health for subcontracted workers to an obligation to 'confirm' whether the subcontractor has properly fulfilled safety and health obligations.

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act imposes imprisonment of one year or more or a fine of up to 1 billion KRW if one or more deaths occur. In comparison, the United States punishes with less than six months imprisonment if a worker dies due to intentional violation of safety regulations, and Germany punishes with imprisonment of up to one year for intentional and repeated violations that endanger workers’ lives. The FKI pointed out that the level of punishment for business owners is excessive compared to major countries. It also noted that serious accidents are the same concept as serious accidents under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, but the Serious Accidents Punishment Act significantly increases the statutory penalties for the same violations, losing legitimacy and balance.

Moreover, the FKI argued that the punitive damages system is a double sanction combined with criminal punishment and claimed that the punishment is excessive. It requested changing the imposed punishment from a minimum sentence to a maximum sentence and considering the abolition of the punitive damages system.

Choo Kwang-ho, head of the FKI Economic Headquarters, said, "Companies are doing their best to prevent safety accidents in industrial sites, but they are experiencing confusion and difficulties in understanding and responding to the current Serious Accidents Punishment Act," adding, "To reduce confusion at industrial sites and enhance the effectiveness of accident prevention, the Serious Accidents Punishment Act should be improved, and furthermore, a paradigm shift toward industrial safety and health policies focusing on prevention rather than post-penalty should be sought."

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