Do Negative Remarks About the HR Manager in a General Meeting Constitute Workplace Harassment?
Bongsoo Jung, Korean labor attorney at KangNam Labor Law Firm
I. Factual Background
A complaint alleged that workplace harassment had occurred within a municipal art group (the “Company”). Following the recent appointment of a new director, changes were made to the existing workplace service guidelines. To enhance communication between the director and group members (employees), a general meeting was held on December 8, 2023, with approximately 36 members in attendance. The meeting lasted about 1 hour and 20 minutes and was attended by the director and the HR Manager (the victim). The director directly explained the company’s service regulations during this meeting. During the meeting, four employees (the alleged perpetrators) primarily expressed dissatisfaction with the HR Manager. The details are as follows: Employee 1 requested that the HR Manager address staff members using honorific language rather than informal speech. Employee 2 raised a complaint about the HR Manager while recounting her sick leave experience. She explained about her sick leave experience related to the HR manager. She reported suffering from severe influenza and attempting to substitute annual leave for sick leave because no more sick leave days were available. However, due to the HR Manager's strict adherence to the pre-approval principle for annual leave, Employee 2 felt pressured to come to work despite her illness. Employee 3 criticized the HR Manager while sharing their recent experience with annual leave usage. They explained that they had requested 1 hour and 30 minutes of annual leave in the morning to attend their child's school event. However, the HR Manager insisted on a minimum of 2 hours of leave, leaving Employee 3 with no choice but to request 2 full hours. Employee 4 supported the grievances of Employees 1, 2, and 3, criticizing the HR Manager for using informal speech, showing inflexibility regarding sick leave and annual leave approvals, and applying unreasonable pressure in such situations. During the meeting, the HR Manager felt deeply humiliated and offended by the criticisms raised publicly in front of all attendees. After the meeting, the HR Manager continued to suffer from recurring headaches and had difficulty concentrating on her work due to the lingering effects of the experience. On March 11, 2024, the HR Manager formally reported the four employees to the company's Grievance Committee, alleging workplace harassment stemming from the humiliating remarks made during the general meeting.
As a result, the Company asked an external expert (a labor attorney) to investigate the claim of workplace harassment, which the attorney did from March 14, 2024, to April 23, 2024. The investigation included interviews with the complainant, the four employees involved, the director, and several witnesses from the group. Based on the investigation, on May 29, 2024, the Grievance Committee concluded that workplace harassment had occurred. However, considering that the individuals involved would need to continue working together, the committee recommended “strict warnings and appropriate measures” instead of formal disciplinary action. Following this recommendation, on June 19, 2024, the Personnel Committee issued warnings to the four employees. While a warning represents the lowest level of disciplinary action, it results in a 30% reduction in performance bonuses due to receiving the lowest rating for year-end bonuses. In response, the four employees filed an appeal for unfair disciplinary action with the Labor Commission on September 13, 2024, arguing that the case did not constitute workplace harassment. The issue of whether the complaints raised against the HR Manager during the recent general meeting of employees constitute workplace harassment will be reviewed, with reference to the decision of the Labor Relations Commission.
II. Arguments of the Parties Regarding the Facts
1. The Employees’ Claims
The background of the general meeting was as follows: Previously, employees were able to freely use annual leave as long as it did not interfere with their work. However, after a change in director in July 2023—the first in five years—workplace service guidelines became significantly stricter, including a strict prohibition on same-day annual leave requests. This change caused considerable confusion among the employees. Instead of simply conveying and persuading them to comply with the stricter service guidelines, it was deemed necessary for the director to personally explain his philosophy and standards regarding workplace discipline to the employees. On December 8, 2023, many employees were already gathered, and there were no special tasks scheduled for the afternoon, so a meeting on workplace service guidelines was held.
Consultations about annual leave, sick leave, and other leave-related matters were handled not with the director but with the HR Manager. During the meeting, while asking the director questions regarding leave policies, conversations that the employees had previously had with the HR Manager were brought up. At that point, the HR Manager interjected into the conversation with statements that were perceived as factually incorrect, leading to rebuttals from the employees. The employees asserted that they did not initially raise complaints or make negative remarks directed at the HR Manager. They had all been hired in 2009, were similar in seniority and age, and therefore had no fundamental discomfort interacting with the HR Manager. However, Employees 1 and 4 noted that other group members had expressed difficulties with the HR Manager’s attitude and tone, and they spoke on behalf of those members to suggest improvements.
Employee 1, as the lead employee, proposed convening the general meeting. In her role as a representative responsible for listening to and voicing group members’ concerns, Employee 1 addressed the HR Manager's use of informal speech and suggested that the HR manager use honorific language when addressing group members.
Employee 2 recounted an incident regarding sick leave. On Monday, November 27, 2023, she and her child had fevers exceeding 40°C and severe coughing, leading to a diagnosis of influenza at the hospital. An arts performance was scheduled for Friday of that week, and Employee 2 called the HR Manager to request removal from the performance roster, but the request was denied. On the following Wednesday, her condition had not improved, and she called again to request one more day of sick leave. However, the HR Manager rejected the request, citing that Employee 2 had already used up all six sick leave days and that annual leave requests required one day's advance notice. Consequently, Employee 2 had to come to work despite being unwell. She stated that her remarks during the meeting were solely based on her personal experience with trying to use sick leave.
Employee 3 shared her related experience regarding annual leave, raising concerns about the HR Manager’s rigid handling of leave approvals. On September 14, 2023, she requested 1 hour and 30 minutes of annual leave in the morning to attend her child’s daycare event. However, the HR Manager insisted that annual leave must be taken in hourly increments, requiring her to request 2 full hours of annual leave. During the meeting, Employee 3 questioned whether requiring annual leave in hourly increments was reasonable and whether other options might be available.
Employee 4 agreed with the concerns raised by Employees 2 and 3. Additionally, she spoke on behalf of group members who felt uncomfortable addressing the director directly, raising questions and suggestions on their behalf.
Therefore, Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 asserted that they did not make any remarks during the general meeting that constituted workplace harassment against the HR Manager.
2. The Company’s Claims
On December 8, 2023, during the general meeting of group members, the employees involved in this case, the director, and the HR Manager were the primary speakers. The meeting followed a question-and-answer format under the theme of “Questions on Workplace Service Guidelines,” with group members asking questions and the director providing answers. However, Employee 1 suddenly raised an issue regarding the HR Manager's use of informal speech, requesting that the HR Manager use honorific language instead. In response, the director acknowledged the concern and expressed hope that the HR Manager would use honorific language moving forward. Following this, other group members who had grievances against the HR Manager continued to raise complaints. Employee 2 brought up her experience with sick leave, stating: "When I was severely ill with influenza and had exhausted my sick leave allowance, I attempted to use annual leave instead. However, the HR Manager informed me that same-day annual leave was not permitted." Employee 2 then asked the director whether same-day annual leave could be approved under such circumstances. The director firmly responded that sick leave should be used for illness, not annual leave. Employee 4 supported Employee 2's remarks, and Employee 1 also added that communication with the HR Manager regarding sick leave requests had been uncomfortable.
Employee 3 recounted another incident regarding annual leave. She explained that while annual leave could previously be requested in 10-minute increments, she had requested to return to work at 11:30 AM after taking leave but was denied and instead had to return at 12:00 PM. Employee 3 then asked the director whether it was possible to use annual leave in 30-minute increments. In response, Employees 1 and 4 criticized the HR Manager, stating that while it had been customary to allow 30-minute increments in the past, the HR Manager had unilaterally enforced an hourly increment policy, which they argued was inappropriate.
For over an hour, the employees moved beyond formal inquiries about service guidelines and began expressing negative complaints about the HR Manager’s tone, work style, and attitude. The four employees reinforced and supported each other’s remarks, collectively placing intense pressure on the HR Manager. As a result, the HR Manager felt deeply humiliated, embarrassed, and uncomfortable in front of the entire group while being being criticized for her workplace management decisions. Even after the meeting, the HR Manager continued to experience recurring headaches and struggled to focus on her work due to the emotional distress caused by the meeting.
III. Criteria for Determining Workplace Harassment (Laws and Regulations)
Under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act (Prohibition of Workplace Harassment), neither an employer nor an employee shall cause physical or mental suffering to another employee or deteriorate the work environment by taking advantage of their superior status or relationship in the workplace beyond the scope of normal work duties. The relevant regulations for this case are as follows:
2. Key Determining Factors
(4) Requirements for Workplace Harassment
1) Abuse of Superior Position or Relationship in the Workplace
(Superiority): It must be recognized that the victim was in a situation where they had little ability to resist or refuse, and the perpetrator must have exploited this condition.
(Use of Superiority): If the perpetrator did not use their superior position or relationship to carry out the act, the incident does not constitute workplace harassment.
(Hierarchical Superiority): This typically refers to being in a higher position in the chain of command. However, even if there is no direct reporting relationship, superiority can still be acknowledged if the perpetrator used their higher rank or status within the company structure.
2) Act Beyond the Reasonable Scope of Work
Employers are not required to address every interpersonal conflict under the Labor Standards Act. Even if superiority is recognized, the problematic act must have occurred in a work-related context.
However, work-relatedness should be interpreted broadly. Even if the act did not occur directly during work performance, it can still be considered work-related if it was linked to or carried out under the pretext of work duties.
Conflicts arising during personal errands or unrelated tasks are generally not considered workplace harassment unless they are explicitly linked to work performance or carried out under its guise.
To determine whether an act exceeds the reasonable scope of work, the following criteria must be met:
The act must lack necessity from a reasonable social perspective in the context of work.
Even if work-related necessity is acknowledged, the manner of the act must be deemed inappropriate from a reasonable social perspective.
Therefore, even if an employee feels dissatisfied with a work instruction, caution, or order, it does not constitute workplace harassment if the act can be justified by work necessity. However, if the manner of instruction includes assault, excessive verbal abuse, or behavior deemed unreasonable by societal standards, it can be considered beyond the reasonable scope of work and may constitute workplace harassment.
3) Acts Causing Physical or Mental Suffering or Deteriorating the Work Environment
Deterioration of the work environment refers to situations where the act causes a level of disruption that significantly impairs the victim's ability to perform their duties.
For example, if an employee is assigned an unreasonable workspace (e.g., being instructed to face a wall while working), even if it falls within the scope of managerial authority, it can still be considered detrimental to the work environment if it creates conditions unsuitable for work performance.
Intent is not required for an act to constitute harassment. If the act resulted in physical or mental suffering or deterioration of the work environment, it can still be recognized as workplace harassment.
3. Comprehensive Assessment
Referring to precedents related to workplace sexual harassment under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, determining whether workplace harassment has occurred requires a comprehensive assessment of the following factors:
The relationship between the parties involved
The location and circumstances under which the act occurred
The explicit or presumed reaction of the alleged victim
The nature and severity of the act
Whether the act was a one-time event or continued over time.
Additionally, from the objective perspective of an average person in the alleged victim's situation, it must be recognized that the act could cause physical or mental suffering or deteriorate the work environment. Furthermore, it must be proven that physical or mental suffering or a deterioration in the work environment actually resulted from the act.
IV. Determination of Whether This Case Constitutes Workplace Harassment
1. The Employees' Claims
For workplace harassment to be established, the following three conditions must be met: ① Abuse of Superior Position or Relationship in the Workplace: The perpetrator must exploit their superior status or relationship, making it difficult for the victim to resist or refuse; ② Act Beyond the Reasonable Scope of Work: The act must exceed the reasonable scope of workplace duties; and ③ Acts Causing Physical or Mental Suffering or Deteriorating the Work Environment: The act must result in physical or mental suffering or significantly deteriorate the work environment.
Regarding the second condition, "Act Beyond the Reasonable Scope of Work," the employees argue that no remarks made during the meeting toward the HR Manager exceeded societal standards or the reasonable scope of workplace duties. Furthermore, the first condition, "Abuse of Superior Position or Relationship," is also not present in this case. "Superiority" refers to a situation where the alleged victim is in a state where resistance or refusal would be difficult, and the perpetrator exploits this state.
The complainant, the HR Manager, and the employees involved in this case are all regular employees without any distinct differences in position or pay structure between them. In fact, it is the HR Manager who holds a relatively superior position in terms of workplace relationships. The HR Manager is responsible for administrative tasks related to performance, scheduling, and workplace discipline, holding a role that allows them to exercise influence in these areas. Additionally, the HR Manager frequently used informal speech (typically used when talking to children or between close friends) when addressing employees, even during official meetings.
The employees in this case simply shared their personal experiences and asked questions related to the workplace guidelines during the meeting. They share the common characteristic of being the primary questioners in that meeting.
2. The Company’s Claims
While the employees may not have explicitly conspired in advance to attack the HR Manager (the complainant) during the general meeting, they shared opinions beforehand, such as: "The HR Manager is implementing arbitrary workplace management not instructed by the director." "There are issues with specific behaviors and speech patterns of the HR Manager as an HR Manager." "The HR Manager arbitrarily decided that Employee 2, despite suffering from influenza, could not take same-day annual leave and had to come to work, which was not a directive from the director."
During the meeting, the employees supported each other's remarks and collectively made negative comments about the HR Manager. This demonstrates that the employees, as a group, held a relational advantage over the HR Manager.
Furthermore, a 2022 Administrative Court ruling established that even if individuals have a lower rank than the victim, they can still achieve a superior relational position by collaborating with other senior colleagues against the victim.
3. Labor Commission's Decision
The Labor Commission emphasized that determining whether "workplace harassment" occurred requires a comprehensive assessment of factors such as: ① The relationship between the parties involved: ② The location and circumstances of the act, ③ The victim's reaction; ④ The content and severity of the act; and ⑤ Whether the act was isolated or sustained over time. Additionally, from the objective perspective of an average person in the victim's situation, it must be evident that the act caused physical or mental suffering or deteriorated the work environment.
The employer argued that Employee 2 shared her influenza-related incident with Employees 1, 3, and 4, which allegedly led to a shared purpose of questioning the HR Manager’s workplace management style during the meeting. During the meeting, the employees allegedly supported each other’s remarks and made negative comments about the HR Manager, creating a relational advantage as a group. However, the Labor Commission found that Employee 2 did not exclusively share her influenza-related experience with Employees 1, 3, and 4 but rather spoke about it more broadly with other group members. Consequently, Employees 1, 3, and 4 naturally became aware of the incident.
It appears that Employee 1 independently determined the necessity of holding the workplace guidelines meeting and acted accordingly. Therefore, the employer's claim that the employees specifically shared their thoughts in advance and formed a group before the meeting lacks credibility and is not supported by concrete evidence.
Additionally, in a setting where participants are free to express their opinions, it is questionable to classify the employees as a group exerting relational superiority simply because they shared similar thoughts or raised related questions on specific issues during the meeting.
For an incident to constitute an abuse of superiority, it must be established that the alleged victim was in a situation where resistance or refusal was significantly difficult. However, during the meeting, the HR Manager (the alleged victim) actively expressed her position and opinions, which indicates she was not in such a vulnerable position.
Regarding the purpose of the meeting, workplace guidelines were publicly announced in a group KakaoTalk chatroom, highlighting changes following appointment of a new director. The primary objective of the meeting was to clarify confusion regarding these new workplace guidelines through direct explanations from the director.
The meeting largely adhered to this purpose. When examining the overall content of the meeting: ① The director primarily answered the employees' questions, with the HR Manager occasionally providing additional comments; ② The dialogue between the employees and the HR Manager mainly focused on clarifying misunderstandings and providing explanations; and ③ As the person responsible for managing workplace guidelines, the HR Manager was in a position where she needed to sincerely address the employees' questions and concerns. While some remarks from the employees may have been uncomfortable for the HR Manager, they were within the boundaries of the meeting's intended purpose and did not lack work-related necessity or breach societal norms of appropriateness. Considering the above points, it is difficult to conclude that the employees acted beyond the reasonable scope of workplace duties.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the employees exploited a superior status or relationship over the HR Manager or engaged in acts during the meeting that exceeded the reasonable scope of workplace duties. As such, the grounds for the "disciplinary warning" based on workplace harassment are deemed unjustified.
|
|
Connect to the app
