Successful Case of Conducting an Investigation and Preparing an Investigation Report on a Workplace Harassment Complaint

The client received a workplace harassment report to the effect that verbal abuse and intimidating conduct by multiple executives and employees, including a superior, had continued. The contents of the report included repeated questioning and the dismissal of opinions over an extended period, insulting expressions via email, the unilateral notification of personnel-related matters, derisive remarks, and intimidating conduct, and in some matters the statements of the parties were at odds. Considering the sensitivity of the matter and the possibility of the dispute spreading, the client commissioned an independent and objective workplace harassment investigation and the preparation of an investigation report by an external expert.

The core issues of this case were whether each of the problematic acts could be confirmed as fact or its probability of occurrence acknowledged, and whether such conduct constituted workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act.

Accordingly, in the early stage of the investigation, our law firm clearly set the purpose and scope of the investigation and systematically collected and organized the statements of the complainant, the respondent, and witnesses.

Where statements were consistent, we acknowledged the occurrence of the fact; where statements were inconsistent, we strictly assessed the probability of occurrence by comprehensively reviewing the circumstances at the time, the specificity and consistency of the statements, and witness statements, applying mutatis mutandis the existing judgment standards of the courts, the Labor Relations Commission, and the National Human Rights Commission.

In addition, we reviewed step by step the elements for the establishment of workplace harassment—such as the requirements as to the parties, the place and time requirements, superiority of position or relationship, and whether the complainant suffered mental anguish—while, in this matter, conducting the legal analysis centered in particular on whether the problematic conduct exceeded the appropriate scope of work duties. We logically structured this entire process in the investigation report so that the company could clearly understand the investigation results and use them in its subsequent response.

As a result of the investigation, although confirmation of the facts or assessment of the probability of occurrence was carried out for each problematic matter, it was judged that, viewed comprehensively, it was difficult to evaluate the conduct as having markedly deviated from the appropriate scope of work duties, and we therefore reached the conclusion that workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act was not established. Accordingly, we made clear that disciplinary measures against the respondents were not required.

However, separately from whether workplace harassment was established, we specified in the investigation report that retaliation on the grounds of the report, unfavorable treatment, and interrogation about the fact of the report are strictly prohibited, and that should such conduct occur in the future, severe measures such as heavy disciplinary action must be taken in accordance with a zero-tolerance principle, thereby establishing organization-level standards for preventing secondary harm. This case is one that demonstrates how important not only the "question of acknowledgment" but also a "fair procedure and logical judgment structure" is in a workplace harassment investigation, and it is meaningful in that it laid a practical foundation enabling the client to respond according to consistent standards in the event of similar disputes in the future.

An independent investigation by an external expert and a systematic report are the most realistic means of preventing the spread of a dispute and protecting the trust of the organization. "Your Legal Team" presents standards that companies can choose with confidence, from the investigation stage through the preparation of the report to post-incident response advice.