Workplace Harassment Acknowledged After 8 Months, Following Criminal Investigation; Victim Endured Abuse Alongside Accused

A public institution has reversed its decision on a workplace harassment case, acknowledging the incident only after a prosecutorial investigation, leaving the victim in a prolonged state of distress and highlighting systemic issues in handling such complaints.

“

I was so distressed by this situation that I received long-term psychiatric treatment and was diagnosed with panic disorder and adjustment disorder.

The Livestock Hygiene and Quarantine Support Center, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, initially ruled an employee's complaint of verbal abuse and assault by a superior as "not recognized" as workplace harassment in December. However, following a prosecutorial investigation into assault charges, the center's disciplinary committee reversed its decision eight months later, finally recognizing the incident as workplace harassment.

According to the victim's account and prosecutorial documents, the incident occurred during a company dinner where a department head, identified as 'B,' allegedly struck employee 'A' with a piece of dried pollack. 'B' also reportedly shouted insults at 'A,' questioning their professionalism and calling them "extremely rude."

“

There is insufficient evidence to prove the assault charge against [Victim A]. Considering the circumstances, including that [Harasser B] had a poor relationship with [Victim A] and filed a counter-accusation after being charged with assault, there are unclear aspects to the complaint.

Following the initial "non-recognition" ruling, 'A' was not only denied disciplinary action against 'B' but also denied separation from the alleged harasser, forcing them to continue working in the same office. The victim reported suffering from anxiety and adjustment disorders, requiring long-term psychiatric treatment due to the ordeal. The situation was exacerbated by 'B' filing a counter-assault charge against 'A,' forcing 'A' to gather evidence and testimonies to prove their innocence.

“

Due to the initial ruling of non-recognition of workplace harassment, separation measures were not taken.

The prosecutorial investigation ultimately found insufficient evidence to charge 'A' with assault, noting suspicious circumstances around 'B's' counter-accusation. Conversely, 'B' received a summary penalty order for assault, though 'B' has appealed this decision. The case underscores the difficulties victims face when internal investigations lack transparency and objectivity, often requiring external legal proceedings to establish facts that should have been clear from the outset.

“

Companies' judgments on workplace harassment have a strong self-regulatory nature, and there is a limit where there are no legal provisions requiring the disclosure of the basis for judgment to the complainant.