[In Court: Whistleblowing] ③ Bank Employee Who Died Under Performance Pressure... Difficult to Receive 'Harassment Compensation'

Bank employee Mr. A was found dead at his home in April 2018. His suicide note contained complaints about performance-related stress. His wife filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation from the bank, claiming that workplace harassment stemming from performance pressure was the cause.

In February 2020, the Incheon District Court ruled that "the branch manager's performance pressure was an act that imposed excessive burden while trivializing the stress Mr. A would experience, lacking consideration and respect."

However, the court ruled against the bereaved family. The court stated, "It is difficult to conclude that the branch manager caused mental suffering to an extent that an average person in society could not tolerate. The evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the perpetrator's actions," and "Even if branch colleagues knew about Mr. A's stress, it cannot be assumed that the bank's personnel manager was aware," explaining the reason for the ruling against the plaintiff.

Workplace harassment can, in severe cases, lead to the victim's death. Even if the situation does not reach such an irreversible point, victims can claim damages against the perpetrator and the company. There is a Supreme Court precedent stating that "using a superior position or relationship at work to cause excessive pain to other workers or to worsen the working environment constitutes ‘illegal workplace harassment’ and the perpetrator is civilly liable to the victim."

However, in reality, victims often do not receive satisfactory compensation. Typically, victims demand compensation for ‘mental damages due to the worker’s death’ and ‘income that could have been earned if the worker had worked normally.’ The problem lies in the ‘proof’ process.

In civil lawsuits, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking compensation. But if the victim was harassed in a situation involving only the victim and the perpetrator, proving it is difficult. Even if there are witnesses, they often feel burdened to testify because they continue to work at the same workplace as the perpetrator or are entangled with the employer’s interests.

Attorney Yang Tae-jung, head of the law firm Gwangya, said, "It would be ideal to present evidence such as recordings or messages documenting the workplace harassment, but it is not easy for victims to secure such evidence while being harassed."

Asia Economy recently obtained and analyzed eight first-instance rulings from civil lawsuits filed by bereaved families of victims who took extreme measures due to ‘workplace harassment’ over the past two years. Only three cases recognized the perpetrator’s liability for compensation.

In February, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed a damage claim filed by the family of Mr. B, an employee of a credit card company, against the company. The family complained of workplace ostracism and unfair personnel evaluations, but the court stated, "If personnel actions were conducted according to usual practices or recognized as reasonable and necessary, unfavorable treatment or violation of the employer’s duty of protection cannot be assumed."

Even when courts recognize the perpetrator’s liability for compensation, the amount awarded is often far less than the amount claimed by the bereaved families.

The family of Mr. Gu, who worked as an engineer on a foreign vessel and took extreme measures, had to wait five years through the second trial to receive a ruling that ‘the senior engineer, captain, and company identified as perpetrators bear partial compensation responsibility.’ Mr. Gu left a suicide note in March 2018 while the ship was passing through the Persian Gulf. The front of the note expressed apologies to his family, and the back contained resentment toward the senior second engineer identified as the harasser.

In Mr. Gu’s case, the bereaved family submitted messages Mr. Gu sent to acquaintances complaining about harassment as evidence. However, the first-instance court found no connection between the senior’s harassment and Mr. Gu’s death. The appellate court partially overturned this, but the compensation amount recognized by the court was about one-fifth of the amount claimed by the family. Most of the litigation costs were also borne by the family. Moreover, due to the company’s appeal, the family must await the Supreme Court’s final judgment.

Attorney Yang said, "As workplace harassment has become a social issue, there is a trend of slightly increasing compensation amounts compared to before," but added, "Even in cases where the victim took extreme measures, compensation amounts are usually decided between 10 million KRW and, at most, around 100 million KRW."

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