CONTENTS
- 1. Workplace Harassment, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
- - Workplace Harassment, What Are the Relevant Statutes?
- 2. Workplace Harassment, What Was the Court's Determination?
- 3. Workplace Harassment, What Was Daeryun's Strategy?
1. Workplace Harassment, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
The plaintiffs who filed the damages lawsuit for workplace harassment were city bus drivers belonging to the OO Urban Transit Corporation (hereinafter "Company A"), and they claimed that they had been subjected to workplace harassment by office staff in charge of dispatch management and service-approval duties at Company A.
Plaintiff B claimed that it was unfair that, even though a notice from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service was sufficient when applying for sick leave due to an industrial accident, office staff member C demanded a separate hospital medical certificate. B also stated that there were acts of harassment such as being assigned to work shifts despite it being a day off.
In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that they had requested adjustments to their work schedules because of occupational accidents but were refused without justifiable reason and were treated unfairly, including being recorded as absent.
On this basis, they submitted a petition to the Employment and Labor Office, but the Employment and Labor Office stated that the conduct of Company A's staff could not be definitively concluded to constitute workplace harassment, and instead recommended that the improper labor-management practices identified during the investigation be improved.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a criminal complaint against Company A on charges of violating the Labor Standards Act (disadvantageous treatment of a person who reports workplace harassment), but the District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground of no suspicion of crime (insufficient evidence).
The plaintiffs therefore filed the damages lawsuit, claiming that because they had suffered emotional harm from the workplace harassment or tortious acts of Company A's staff, Company A, as the employer of those staff, was obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs.
Workplace Harassment, What Are the Relevant Statutes?
🔗Workplace harassment refers to conduct by an employer or an employee that, using a superior position or relationship in the workplace, causes physical or mental suffering to another employee.
The relevant content is set forth in the Labor Standards Act.
▣ Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act (Prohibition of Workplace Harassment)
No employer or employee shall cause physical or mental suffering to another employee or worsen the working environment beyond the appropriate scope of work by taking advantage of a superior position or relationship in the workplace.
Under the Civil Act, where damage arises because an employer failed to exercise due care in the appointment of an employee and in the supervision of that employee's duties, the employer bears liability for damages in respect of the employee's tortious act.
Accordingly, where a person suffers harm from workplace harassment by one of a company's employees, the company may also bear liability for damages.
▣ Article 756 of the Civil Act (Employer's Liability for Compensation)
(1) A person who employs another to engage in any business is liable to compensate for damage that the employee has caused to a third party in the course of executing that business. This does not apply, however, where the employer exercised due care in the appointment of the employee and in the supervision of the business, or where the damage would have occurred even if such due care had been exercised.
(2) A person who supervises the business on behalf of the employer also bears the liability set forth in the preceding paragraph.
2. Workplace Harassment, What Was the Court's Determination?
The District Court that heard the damages lawsuit filed for workplace harassment, among the several acts that the plaintiffs claimed to constitute workplace harassment by Company A's staff, found only some of them to constitute workplace harassment or tortious acts.
The court found that some of the staff's acts were legitimate performance of duties that took into account the prevention of bus service cancellations and the on-site conditions of dispatch.
However, with respect to some acts that were found to constitute workplace harassment, the court held that Company A had to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs.
Taking comprehensive account of the nature and degree of the acts, the emotional suffering of the plaintiffs, and Company A's measures to remedy the harm and to prevent workplace harassment, the court held that Company A was to pay each of the plaintiffs consolation money of 300,000 won.
3. Workplace Harassment, What Was Daeryun's Strategy?
We analyzed the District Court's judgment, which partially recognized the workplace harassment by the company's staff that the plaintiffs had claimed in the damages lawsuit filed for workplace harassment and ordered the company to pay consolation money.
If you are being subjected to workplace harassment, the most important thing is to gather evidence such as the content of conversations, statements from colleagues, and messenger records, and to prove the facts.
The methods of workplace harassment are becoming more cunning by the day, and the number of resulting harm cases is also increasing.
If you need legal assistance regarding workplace harassment, you are welcome to visit Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.
We will provide our best assistance in order to safeguard our clients' rights.
