A Case of Workplace Harassment: Employer’s Abuse of Power
Bongsoo Jung, Korean labor attorney at KangNam Labor Law Firm
I. Introduction
"Workplace harassment" generally refers to a superior abusing their position to mistreat subordinates. When such an event occurs, the company must determine whether it qualifies as workplace harassment and if so, take appropriate personnel measures to resolve the matter. In this case, the perpetrator was the employer. Multiple employees complained of harassment at the hands of a branch manager of a foreign company, despite the branch manager having worked there for only eight months. Many employees expressed a strong aversion to continuing to work with him. The headquarters' HR team conducted interviews with the employees who filed complaints and verified the facts. As a result, they determined that it was no longer possible for the branch manager to remain in his position. The HR team offered the branch manager a dismissal allowance (payment in lieu of notice) along with one month’s compensation as a gesture of goodwill, requesting that he sign a resignation agreement.
However, the branch manager refused, arguing that he had worked hard for the company and was committed to contributing to its future growth. He claimed that there were no valid reasons for his dismissal. As a final measure, the company offered three months’ salary as part of a resignation package, which the branch manager also rejected.
The headquarters’ HR team consulted Labor Law Firm A regarding whether dismissal of the branch manager was legally problematic. The labor law firm explained that, under Korean labor law, an employer cannot terminate an employee without just cause. Furthermore, during the HR team’s fact-finding interviews, it became evident that they had not sufficiently documented the harassment claims using the six W’s principle (who, what, when, where, why, and how). The lack of concrete evidence made it difficult to justify termination as a legally valid action. As a result, the HR team asked the labor law firm to conduct a full investigation, covering the complainants, witnesses, and the accused branch manager, and sought support for the disciplinary procedures.
The labor law firm conducted an investigation involving six complainants, the HR team leader (as a witness), and the branch manager. Of the 19 complaints, the investigation found that 12 were substantiated with either consistent testimony or supporting evidence. These 12 complaints were determined to be cases of workplace harassment and breaches of company policy. The firm recommended disciplinary action, and based on the findings, the company convened a disciplinary committee, which decided to terminate the branch manager and formally notified him of the decision. After reviewing the company’s decision, the branch manager ultimately acknowledged that his actions warranted termination and accepted the company’s resignation proposal.
This report will now examine the investigation findings in detail and assess whether the incidents legally qualify as workplace harassment.
II. Confirmation of Facts
This case involves a branch manager who was reported to the headquarters' HR team by six subordinates within eight months of being hired in February 2024. The complaints cited workplace harassment and violations of company regulations as the cause of their complaints. In response, the HR team suspended the branch manager from duties and placed him on paid leave while conducting a fact-finding investigation.
Individuals Involved:
• Accused (Branch Manager, male): employed eight months
• Complainants:
1. Complainant 1 (Male, Executive Director): employed 8 years
2. Complainant 2 (Male, Senior Director): employed 8 years
3. Complainant 3 (Male, Senior Director): employed 8 years
4. Complainant 4 (Male, Deputy General Manager): employed 1 year
5. Complainant 5 (Female, General Manager): employed 8 years
6. Complainant 6 (Male, General Manager): employed 6 years
• Witness: HR Manager (Female): employed 10 years
The allegations of workplace harassment and violations of company policy against the accused include the following:
1. Verbal Abuse and Threats at a Company Dinner (February 21, 2024): The branch manager reprimanded Complainant 4 for using informal speech, demanding he always use formal speech ("da/na/kka" form). The manager used profanity and even forced Complainant 4 to record a statement pledging not to use informal speech anymore. Complainant 4 experienced severe anxiety about coming to work, requiring psychiatric counseling. Evidence submitted includes an audio recording of Complainant 4 stating:
“I will never use informal speech in front of you again.” At that time, text messages to his spouse expressed deep emotional distress. He also submitted a medical assessment of adjustment disorder due to the situation. (Recognized as workplace harassment)
2. Derogatory and Humiliating Remarks (April – May 2024): During one-on-one monthly meetings, the branch manager made belittling remarks about Complainant 4’s education. The manager flaunted his MBA from "S University" while mocking Complainant 4’s application to "K University" for an MBA, saying: "Why? Do you think your connections from H University aren't enough?" These comments were made repeatedly, causing distress to Complainant 4. There was no direct evidence, and the branch manager denied making such statements. (Not recognized as workplace harassment due to a lack of supporting evidence)
3. Mandatory Greeting using a 90-Degree Bow: The branch manager required employees to visit his office every morning and bow at a 90-degree angle as a greeting. When Complainant 3 performed a simple nod, the manager called him in and scolded him, saying: "Why are you greeting me like that? If you're going to greet, do it properly at a 90-degree angle." The manager ordered Complainant 3 to pass this directive to other employees. Complainant 4 also complied, stating that the forced bowing ritual became an extreme source of stress. (Recognized as workplace harassment)
4. Verbal Abuse at a Company Dinner (September 25, 2024): The branch manager publicly berated Complainant 6 for crossing his legs while sitting. At a team dinner, the manager shouted in front of everyone, saying: "How dare you cross your legs in front of me while I’m talking?!" Multiple witnesses confirmed the incident. Although this was a one-time occurrence, and exact details of the verbal abuse were not fully documented, the incident was deemed inappropriate for a respectful workplace. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics)
5. Verbal Abuse Over Drink-Pouring Etiquette (May – June 2024): At a business lunch, the branch manager berated Complainant 6 for pouring alcohol for a guest first instead of for him. The manager scolded Complainant 6 in front of everyone, saying:
"Hey, don’t you even know who the real boss is?" "Which company do you belong to? Where’s your loyalty?" Complainant 6 felt extremely humiliated, and Complainant 4 confirmed the event. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics)
6. Forced Purchase of the Branch Manager’s Book (March – April 2024): The branch manager pressured employees and business partners to purchase his book. Complainants 3, 4, and 6 stated that the manager repeatedly checked whether they had bought it. A business partner’s CEO was also pressured into purchasing the book. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics)
7. Forced Gambling in Office Golf Matches (June & August 2024): The branch manager coerced subordinates with significantly poorer golf skills into high-stakes golf bets, placing financial strain on them. Complainants 1 and 3 confirmed that the manager forced them into gambling golf games despite their lack of skill. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics)
8. Inappropriate Betting with a Partner Company: The branch manager made an unethical bet with a partner company, stating that if his company lost, it would provide the partner company with expensive equipment (worth KRW 50–60 million). If his company won, the partner company would sponsor an overseas trip. Complainants 2 and 3 confirmed the details. While the bet was never carried out, its mere proposal violated company ethics policies. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics)
9. Creating Job Insecurity by Threatening Layoffs: The branch manager repeatedly mentioned potential layoffs, creating a sense of job insecurity among employees. He told Complainant 1: "The Asia-Pacific (AP) regional sales director ordered me to fire the entire Korean sales team, but I’m trying to hold them back." Complainant 3 was managing a major project where the issuance of a purchase order was delayed due to external circumstances. In response, the branch manager pressured them, saying: "Do you even want to continue in sales? You can’t keep selling like this. Maybe it’s time for you to find another job." During a business trip, the manager stated in the car: "Upper management wants me to fire everyone, but I’m trying to get along with the team. However, if needed, I have full approval to let you all go." Complainant 6 also witnessed a similar comment at a company dinner on September 25, 2024, where the manager said: "I can handle all the business myself, even without a sales team. I can fire everyone and run everything on my own." In a one-on-one conversation, the branch manager claimed that the AP regional sales director had told him: "Why are you still keeping those old guys around? Just fire them all and get it over with." However, when the AP regional sales director later visited Korea, they denied ever making such a statement. (Recognized as a violation of company’s code of ethics due to fostering a hostile and anxiety-inducing work environment)
10. Forcing Employees to Express Gratitude for Bonuses & Implied Requests for Compensation: The branch manager pressured employees to express gratitude for bonuses and implied expectations of reciprocation, causing employees to feel obligated. According to company policy, employees cannot receive a bonus if there are unresolved payment collection issues from clients. Complainant 1, concerned about whether they would receive a performance bonus due to delayed client payments, asked the branch manager to negotiate with the Asia-Pacific (AP) regional office for approval. After successfully receiving the bonus, the manager remarked: "Since you got the money thanks to me, you owe me a drink. Let’s play a round of golf." This was not said as a joke but with genuine expectation. Complainant 2 recalled that, in a formal setting, the manager told employees:
"You should be grateful and act accordingly." "Shouldn’t you give me a share?" Complainant 3 stated that the manager frequently asked: "So, what are you going to do for me now that you got your bonus?" (Recognized as a violation of the company’s code of ethics)
11. Exclusion from Work Duties: On July 17, 2024, and November 11, 2024, the branch manager deliberately ignored and excluded Complainant 5 from work-related tasks. The HR manager confirmed that the assigned tasks were within the appropriate scope of work at the time. (No formal violation recognized)
12. Excessive Public Reprimanding: On August 8 and 9, 2024, the branch manager shouted at Complainant 5 in an open office setting, causing shock and humiliation. The manager yelled: "I already know you're terrible at your job. If you don’t know something, just ask!" "I’ve seen plenty of people like you who are completely incompetent." Complainant 5 lost confidence in her work and became socially withdrawn from colleagues. A recording was submitted as evidence, confirming that the branch manager made these statements. The public reprimand exceeded reasonable work-related discipline, causing emotional distress, and thus qualifies as workplace harassment. (Recognized as workplace harassment)
13. Inappropriate Implications About Personal Relationships: The branch manager questioned how Complainant 5 had retained her job despite poor performance, implying an inappropriate relationship with the former branch manager. Since the conversation happened privately, and no supporting evidence was available, it is difficult to legally establish workplace harassment. (No formal violation recognized due to lack of evidence)
14/15/16. Unfair Requests and Orders: (1) In July 2024, the branch manager instructed Complainant 5 to purchase wine not from the company’s long-term supplier, but from a wine company he personally used. (2) In June 2024, the branch manager instructed Complainant 5 to use the corporate credit card to purchase and display his own book at a masterclass event. (3) In July 2024, the branch manager instructed Complainant 5, through Director Kim ○○, to use the corporate credit card to purchase his personal clothing for the Thailand Sales Conference.
The above three unfair work orders were reported by Complainant 5. Since they were related to work-related activities and the costs were not significant, and because the claims from both parties differed, it is difficult to determine this as a violation of company regulations. However, as these actions could potentially breach company policies, the branch manager should be sufficiently cautioned to prevent recurrence. (No formal violation recognized)
17. Violation of Corporate Credit Card Usage Guidelines: Company policy requires the highest-ranking employee present to handle payments and expense claims for group activities. However, the branch manager deliberately avoided paying, putting employees in an awkward position, forcing them to cover expenses instead. During golf outings, dinners, and workshops, the manager was unable to use his corporate card, leading employees to pay on his behalf. As a result, employees were penalized for violating corporate card usage policies. (Recognized as a violation of company business trip and entertainment expense policies)
18. Violation of Obligation to Maintain Salary Confidentiality: Complainants 3 and 6 reported that the branch manager publicly disclosed employees' salary information. During a team dinner, the branch manager complained that before his hiring, he had earned KRW 500 million annually, but now he only made KRW 300 million. When Complainant 6 submitted a resignation letter, the manager boasted about his influence, saying: "I got AP approval to increase his salary by 20%, so he decided to stay." Additionally, the manager mentioned that he had matched Executive Director Kim ○○’s salary with his own, indirectly revealing Director Jang’s salary as well. The HR manager confirmed that salary information is confidential company data and testified that employees had previously received warnings for disclosing such information. Since publicly disclosing salaries can create discord among employees and cause difficulties in salary management, the company prohibits salary disclosure. (Recognized as a violation of the company’s code of ethics)
19. Sexually Inappropriate Comments: The branch manager repeatedly made inappropriate remarks to the HR manager, comparing her to a female HR employee from his previous job. The manager recounted a story multiple times, saying:
"She took such good care of me. One time, when we were on a business trip to Busan, people thought she was my mistress. When I told them she was from HR, they said, 'Oh, I thought you brought your mistress along.'" The HR manager testified that, from an ordinary woman’s perspective, the comments were deeply uncomfortable and inappropriate. However, the manager denied making these statements, and since the conversation occurred privately without witnesses or evidence, it is difficult to legally establish sexual harassment. (No formal violation recognized due to lack of evidence)
III. Criteria for Determining the Occurrence of Workplace Harassment and Disciplinary Action Against the Branch Manager
1. Criteria for Determining Workplace Harassment
For an action to be legally recognized as workplace harassment, the following three key elements must be evident: (1) It involved an abuse of a position of superiority in workplace hierarchy or relationships; (2) It exceeded reasonable work-related boundaries; and (3) It caused physical or psychological distress, or worsened the work environment.
“Superiority in position” refers to a higher rank or status in a command relationship, while “superiority in relationship” refers to a situation where the other party is highly likely to find it difficult to resist or refuse. If an action does not exploit workplace position or relationship superiority, it does not constitute workplace harassment. For an act to be recognized as “exceeding the reasonable scope of work,” (i) the act must lack business necessity when viewed from the perspective of social norms, or (ii) even if business necessity is recognized, the manner in which the act is carried out must be deemed unreasonable based on social norms. Therefore, even if an employee feels dissatisfied with a work order or command, if the action is considered necessary for work under social norms, it is difficult to classify it as workplace harassment. However, if the order or command involves physical violence, excessive verbal abuse, or other forms of inappropriate conduct that deviate from social norms, it can be regarded as exceeding the reasonable scope of work and may constitute workplace harassment.
Ultimately, whether workplace harassment has occurred is determined through a comprehensive assessment. This includes considering specific circumstances such as the relationship between the parties involved, the location and context in which the act occurred, the explicit or inferred reaction of the victim, the nature and severity of the act, and whether the behavior was a one-time or continuous occurrence. The final determination must be based on an objective assessment from the perspective of an average person in a similar situation as the victim, ensuring that the act resulted in physical or psychological distress or a deterioration of the work environment.
2. Request for Disciplinary Action against the Branch Manager
The investigator confirmed that 12 of 19 alleged acts of misconduct violated relevant laws and company regulations. Specifically, these included 3 cases of workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act, 8 violations of the company’s code of ethics, and 1 violation of the corporate travel and entertainment expense policies. According to the Labor Standards Act, once workplace harassment is confirmed through an investigation, the employer must immediately take appropriate actions against the perpetrator, such as disciplinary action or reassignment. Additionally, the employer must listen to the views of the affected employees during this process (Article 76-3, Paragraph 5). Failure on the part of the employer to comply with these requirements may result in a fine of up to KRW 5 million.
The branch manager’s confirmed actions violated the company’s employment regulations and constituted grounds for disciplinary action. As the head of the Korean branch, the branch manager was in a position of responsibility to prevent and prohibit workplace harassment, unlike general employees. However, he abused his superior status to become a perpetrator of workplace harassment instead.
Furthermore, the company’s code of ethics requires managers to uphold higher standards of responsibility and serve as role models. Despite this, the branch manager committed 8 ethical violations, which significantly increases his degree of blameworthiness. Additionally, within just 8 months of employment, 6 of 30 direct subordinates formally reported his misconduct. Some complainants required psychiatric counseling, indicating the serious impact of his actions. Multiple employees testified that their relationship with the branch manager had completely broken down, making reconciliation or continued cooperation impossible. Given these factors, these circumstances should be taken into account when determining the appropriate level of disciplinary action.
IV. The Company’s Disciplinary Actions and Lessons Learned
1. The Company’s Disciplinary Actions
The disciplined individual (branch manager) was hired to be the Korean branch manager on February 19, 2024, and had been serving in this position. On October 7, 2024, employees formally reported the branch manager to the company for workplace harassment and compliance issues. The company conducted a fact-finding investigation, reviewing relevant laws and company regulations, and confirmed that 12 of the 19 reported violations were substantiated.
The company decided on disciplinary dismissal of the branch manager for the following reasons: ① The branch manager, as the head of the sales organization, was in a position that required him to actively prevent and prohibit workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act. However, instead, he abused his superior status, becoming a perpetrator of workplace harassment, causing severe psychological distress to many employees and worsening the work environment; ② The company’s code of conduct requires managers to uphold a higher level of responsibility and serve as role models. However, the branch manager violated ethical guidelines and company policies in 12 separate instances; ③ These instances of misconduct were confirmed within only eight months of his employment through multiple reports from subordinates; ④ Some complainants required psychiatric counseling, demonstrating the severe impact of his actions on employees; ⑤ Several employees stated that they would resign if they had to continue working with the branch manager.
On the other hand, the branch manager placed most of the blame on employees, failing to acknowledge his wrongdoing. Considering these factors, the company determined that it was no longer feasible to maintain an employment relationship with him.
2. Lessons Learned
The Labor Standards Act introduced the legal obligation to prevent workplace harassment in 2019, but initially, it did not impose mandatory corrective measures on companies, leading to concerns about its effectiveness.
However, in 2021, legal requirements were expanded, making it a statutory obligation for companies to: (1) Conduct investigations when reports of workplace harassment occur; (2) Take appropriate corrective action; and (3) Ensure protection of the receiver of the workplace harassment. With the implementation of laws on preventing workplace harassment, corporate culture in Korea has gradually evolved from a rigid, hierarchical system to a more mutual-respect-based workplace culture, which is considered a positive step forward. However, as demonstrated in this case, many companies still struggle with entrenched traditional workplace behaviors, leading to ongoing issues of workplace harassment. It is essential for companies to remain vigilant, raise awareness, and continue refining workplace policies to foster a more respectful corporate culture. Understanding the definition of workplace harassment through actual cases like this will help companies take the necessary steps toward creating a better work environment.
|
|
Connect to the app
