Workplace Harassment | Recognition of the Obligation to Pay Consolation Money for Workplace Harassment

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.

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.

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.