Slapped by boss, worker denied bullying status due to 'lack of repetition'

A recent incident where a worker was slapped multiple times by a superior in front of colleagues has highlighted a contentious issue in South Korean labor law: the definition of workplace bullying and the emphasis on "repetitiveness."

The victim, identified only as Mr. A, a 40-something man working at an IT company in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, was slapped by his superior, Mr. B, during a casual game of rock-paper-scissors in a cafe near the company. CCTV footage shows Mr. B striking Mr. A's cheek several times with his palm and raising his hand over Mr. A's head in a threatening manner, all while three colleagues watched.

“

After an investigation by an external labor consultant, it was determined that Mr. B impulsively contacted Mr. A's right cheek with his left hand, and there was no repetition of the act. Also, although the job titles were different, they were not in a superior-subordinate relationship in terms of work, so it was difficult to judge that Mr. B used his superior position.

Mr. A reported the incident as workplace bullying, citing the humiliation. However, the company dismissed the claim, stating that an external labor consultant determined the act lacked "repetitiveness" and was an "impulsive contact" with Mr. A's cheek. The company also argued that Mr. B did not hold a position of direct command or authority over Mr. A in that specific context, thus not constituting an abuse of superior status. While the company imposed a one-month suspension on Mr. B, it refused to classify the act as workplace bullying.

“

The police recognized the act as assault, but the labor authorities ruled it as not workplace bullying.

Dissatisfied, Mr. A filed a complaint with the Seongnam branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The ministry concurred with the company's assessment, concluding that the incident did not meet the criteria for workplace bullying due to its lack of repetition. This decision stands in contrast to the police, who recognized the act as assault and issued an immediate trial judgment against Mr. B in February.

Labor experts and advocates criticize this narrow interpretation. "The labor authorities seem to have accepted the company's judgment without proper verification," said Jeon Hae-kyung, a labor attorney representing Mr. A. Jang Jong-soo, an official at Workplace Bullying 119, added, "In cases where the intensity of the act causes humiliation and severely damages the work environment, it is not uncommon for labor authorities to rule it as not workplace bullying simply because it was not repeated. This contradicts the legislative intent of worker protection."

“

It is not uncommon for labor authorities to rule it as not workplace bullying simply because it was not repeated, even if the intensity of the act causes humiliation and severely damages the work environment. This contradicts the legislative intent of worker protection.