Advisory Case on Remedying Procedural Defects and Improving the Legal Assessment Framework of a Workplace Harassment Investigation Report

1. The Client's Situation

The client had formed its own investigation committee and prepared an investigation report regarding a reported case of workplace harassment, but concerns were raised about the procedural propriety and the soundness of the legal assessment structure. The report merely summarized the interview content, while official written questions and answers and the signatures of the persons giving statements were missing, and the process of in-depth questioning and cross-verification based on the "Five Ws and One H" was not sufficiently demonstrated. In addition, rather than a systematic assessment based on the requirements for the establishment of workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act, it remained a narrative centered on a listing of facts, so limitations in defensive capacity were anticipated should a dispute arise in the future. Accordingly, the client requested advice on the direction for supplementing the investigation report and the feasibility of reviewing disciplinary measures.

Your Legal Team first thoroughly re-examined the report, focusing on the legality of the investigation procedure and the structure of evidence evaluation. We recommended re-preparing official written questions and answers specifying the date, place, and investigator for all persons investigated and key witnesses, and securing the specificity, consistency, and voluntariness of the statements by combining open-ended and closed-ended questions. We also advised establishing a separate credibility assessment table based on the consistency between each statement and objective evidence such as captured messenger conversations and related materials, thereby organizing a cross-verification system. Furthermore, in determining whether workplace harassment had occurred, we proposed reconstructing the opinion of judgment into a structure that comprehensively reviews factors such as repetitiveness and maliciousness, centered on the requirements under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act: (1) superiority in status or relationship, (2) exceeding the appropriate scope of work, and (3) causing mental suffering. In addition, we presented the opinion that the level of disciplinary measures should be reviewed at a separate stage, premised on the supplemented investigation results, taking into account the in-house disciplinary regulations and equity with prior cases.

By supplementing the investigation report into a structure based on official written questions and answers and clearly organizing a judgment framework by legal requirement, the client was able to strengthen procedural legitimacy and the objectivity of evidence evaluation. As a result, it came to have an internal control system capable of preventing in advance the possibility of escalation into a complaint to the labor office, a civil claim for damages, or a dispute over unfair discipline. Moreover, by establishing reasonable criteria for deciding whether and to what degree to impose discipline, it was able to substantially lower the risk of additional disputes between labor and management.

Workplace harassment cases go beyond simple fact-finding; the legality of the investigation procedure design and judgment structure determines a company's legal risk. Our firm provides enterprise-tailored HR and labor legal services, including the design of workplace harassment investigations, review of investigation reports, advice on the level of disciplinary measures, and revision of rules of employment and disciplinary regulations.