Work Instructions from the Chairperson: When Do They Constitute Workplace Harassment?
Bongsoo Jung (Labor attorney, KangNam labor law firm)

I. Introduction
On January 24, 2026, XX Peace Foundation received an official document from the Labor Office stating that a report had been made that the chairperson had engaged in workplace harassment, and that appropriate measures prescribed by the relevant laws should be taken. The document instructed the foundation to implement corrective guidance in accordance with Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act and to report the results to the Labor Office by February 20, 2026. In particular, it added a proviso that if the alleged perpetrator was the representative director of the workplace, an objective investigation must be conducted through an external labor attorney (labor law firm).
This foundation is operated with support from a local government, and due to budget cuts, the complainants (1 and 2) resigned upon recommendation to do so by the management. Complainant 1 filed a complaint with the Labor Office eight months after resignation, and Complainant 2 filed approximately one year after resignation, claiming that the chairperson’s instructions and conduct during their employment constituted workplace harassment.
Complainant 1 alleged the following: ① (Forced written apology and derogatory remarks) In early June 2024, the chairperson instructed the complainant to read the book The Korean War Is Not Over Yet and write a book report, thereby forcing the conduct of activities unrelated to work duties. When Complainant 1 responded, “I will write it another time,” the chairperson forced the complainant to write a statement of explanation (written apology) on the grounds that they had been inappropriately dismissive. In addition, in front of all the employees, the chairperson made an insulting remark, saying, “Since you don’t know how to use a computer, write it by hand and submit it.” ② (Shouting and insulting during a reprimand) Around October 2024, while an external contractor was carrying out electrical work in the park, the chairperson used insulting expressions such as “You dug so ignorantly that the tree roots are exposed,” and loudly reprimanded the complainant.
Complainant 2 alleged the following: ① (Instructions for private tasks) Around July 2024, the chairperson’s private residence was flooded, and the chairperson instructed facility department staff, including Complainant 2, to organize flooded personal furniture and household items, and thereafter directed the complainant, for one week, to clean the private residence.
② (Forced writing of statements of explanation) Even for minor issues, the chairperson repeatedly demanded the submission of written explanations, thereby creating an intimidating work environment.
Our labor law firm was entrusted, as of February 4, 2026, with conducting a factual investigation and preparing an investigative report regarding the workplace harassment complaint filed against the foundation, which it carried out. On February 20, 2026, the investigative report was submitted to the Labor Office. The Labor Office accepted the labor law firm’s views on this matter and closed the case accordingly.

II. Assessment of the Harassment Allegations Raised by Complainant 1
1. Forced Writing of a Statement of Explanation and Derogatory Remarks
(1) Confirmation of Facts
The foundation in question is a non-profit organization established to commemorate the hundreds of refugees killed by U.S. bombing and strafing during the Korean War, to honor the deceased at the site of the massacre, and to pray for peace. The Korean War Is Not Over Yet contains some background of the foundation’s establishment and the process of uncovering the truth.
1) Existence of instruction to submit a book report and the claim of irrelevance to work: Around June 2024, the chairperson instructed all employees to read The Korean War Is Not Over Yet and submit a book report. As the book is closely related to the founding purpose of the institution and has the nature of job-related competency training, it is difficult to conclusively regard it as a purely private request unrelated to work.
2) Claim that the book report was submitted due to inability to resist demanding and coercive instructions: It is acknowledged that the tone of the chairperson’s instruction was somewhat demanding and high-handed. However, there is no objective evidence showing that personnel disadvantages or specific coercive conditions accompanied the instruction, and thus there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the level of coercion was remarkably excessive to the extent that it violated social norms.
3) Whether the statement “Since you cannot use a computer, write it by hand” was made: The existence of this statement is acknowledged; however, testimonies differ regarding its evaluation. No evidence was found that a specific individual was directly disparaged, and depending on the manner of expression, it cannot be ruled out that it may have caused discomfort or a sense of intimidation to some employees.
4) Demand to write a statement of explanation and pressure to resign: It is acknowledged that Complainant 1 wrote one statement of explanation in relation to submission of the book report. This was not an official disciplinary record, but rather an action taken to maintain organizational order after Complainant 1 threatening to hold a “press conference” and disclose externally the chairperson’s coercion to write the book report, upon which the chairperson required the preparation of a statement of explanation.

(2) Determination of Whether the Chairperson’s Actions Constitute Workplace Harassment
1) Whether the instruction to submit a book report falls within the appropriate scope of work
As recognized in this investigation, the book The Korean War Is Not Over Yet conforms to the founding purpose of this foundation, and considering the nature of the peace park, the book has been confirmed to be related to the foundation’s work. It can be considered work-related for employees managing the peace park to have a basic understanding of its historical background and significance. Accordingly, the instructions to read and write a reflection cannot be regarded as a purely private request or a directive clearly unrelated to work, but rather has work-related relevance as part of education and training to enhance employees’ job competency.
In relevant case law, the courts, in determining whether an action “exceeds the appropriate scope of work,” consider as key criteria whether the instructions were clearly unnecessary for the performance of duties or lacked reasonableness in light of social norms. ① Even if work instructions are somewhat harsh or place a burden on employees, if they are recognized as having a work-related purpose and reasonable, it is difficult to immediately regard them as harassment. ② If instructions for educational or training purposes fall within a range acceptable under social norms, they cannot be considered as deviating from the appropriate scope of work.
In this case, the instructions to write a book report are partially connected to the institution’s founding purpose and educational function, and no objective evidence has been identified to prove that the requirements in terms of length or format were impossible to perform or excessive. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the mere fact that such instructions were given constitutes a significant deviation from the appropriate scope of work.
2) Assessment of the attitude and manner of expression in the given remarks
With regards to the statement to the effect that “If you cannot use a computer, write it by hand,” it is acknowledged that there was a possibility that such an order could have caused discomfort or a sense of alienation for some employees. However, no explicit insulting expression directed at a specific individual has been confirmed, and there is insufficient evidence to establish that such remarks were repeated or continuous. A witness who heard the statement at the time testified that “hearing the remark did not make me feel bad or think it was problematic, and I thought our generation was not a computer generation.” Considering these points, it is difficult to regard the situation as workplace harassment merely because Complainant 1 felt somewhat offended or stressed.
3) Assessment of the Requirement to Write a Statement of Explanation
It is acknowledged that one statement of explanation was written; however, such a statement does not remain as part of the disciplinary record, and Complainant 1 made remarks in front of all employees suggesting an inability to comply with the instruction, and thereafter was reported to have engaged in conduct to undermine organizational order, such as threatening to hold a press conference. Therefore, there is room to view the request for submission of a statement of explanation as a legitimate exercise of personnel authority for the purpose of maintaining order.
4) Distinction between Inappropriate Conduct Such as Raising One’s Voice or Using a Demanding Tone in the Course of a Legitimate Reprimand and Workplace Harassment
The courts have held that the mere fact that uncomfortable conduct such as raising one’s voice, using a demanding tone, or having a coercive manner temporarily in the course of a legitimate work-related reprimand or supervision does not readily lead to the conclusion that it constitutes workplace harassment due to abuse of a superior position. In relevant cases, although uncomfortable conduct such as shouting during the course of reprimanding subordinates over work-related reporting issues was at issue, the reprimand itself fell within the scope of managerial actions related to work performance, did not escalate to the use of abusive language, personal insults, or threatening physical contact, and considering the circumstances (one-time occurrence, context, and degree), it was deemed difficult to regard the conduct as continuous or repeated harassment, leading to a denial that workplace harassment was established to have occurred.
Accordingly, in this case as well, the key factors for determination include: ① whether the statements or expressions were made in the course of work instructions or work-related management and supervision, ② whether the intensity of the expressions concretely amounts to an infringement of personal rights (such as insulting, disparaging, or threatening), ③ whether repetition and continuity are established, and ④ whether they are connected to objective infringements of rights such as personnel disadvantages. It is difficult to evaluate the conduct as workplace harassment merely on the grounds that one “felt offended” or “experienced stress.”

2. Raising One’s Voice and Insulting during a Reprimand
(1) Confirmation of Facts
In the fall of 2024, it is acknowledged that there was a concern regarding damage to cherry tree roots during electrical work in the park. It has been confirmed that the chairperson raised his voice while reprimanding the workers in order to protect assets. Both parties’ statements are consistent in that the remarks at issue were directed not at Complainant 1 but at workers belonging to an outsourced contractor. Therefore, it is determined that the remarks were not directed at or targeted Complainant 1.
(2) Determination of Whether the Actions Constitute Workplace Harassment
According to the established facts in this case, the direct recipient of the remarks was not Complainant 1 but an external worker. Rather than an intent to harass Complainant 1, it is reasonable to view the conduct as an incidental remark made in the course of managing an urgent situation, and even if Complainant 1 felt humiliated, this is closer to a cognitive distortion in which a legitimate work-related act was misconstrued as a personal attack. Accordingly, the chairperson’s remarks do not satisfy the requirements of a “target” element and the “exceeding the appropriate scope of work” element under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore are determined not to constitute workplace harassment.

III. Assessment of the Harassment Allegations Raised by Complainant 2
1. Instructions to Perform Private Tasks: Assisting with Flood Cleanup and Disinfection Work at the Chairperson’s Residence
(1) Confirmation of Facts
1) Assisting in flood cleanup at the residence: Around July 2024, the chairperson’s residence was flooded due to the rainy season. The parties’ statements are consistent that facility management department employees visited the site and performed cleanup work, such as moving furniture and removing muddy water, for approximately 2–3 hours in the morning.
2) Subject of instruction and whether work-related coercion occurred: The assistance with flood cleanup began with a proposal by the head of the facility department, stating, “Let’s go and help,” and there is insufficient evidence to regard it as an official instruction from the foundation or as an order accompanied by coercion. Considering that some employees did not participate and no subsequent reprimand followed, it is determined that the nature of the activity was largely voluntary in nature.
3) Claim of being required to work at the residence in the afternoon for one week: Complainant 2 claims to have revisited alone in the afternoon and performed disinfection work for one week; however, there is no objective evidence or third-party testimony to support this. Considering the size of the residence (approximately 5 pyeong) and the statements of supervisors denying this claim, the plausibility that there was enough work for one week is markedly low and difficult to recognize as fact. However, there remains the possibility that short-term disinfection work took place, as acknowledged by the chairperson.
4) Claim of knee burn and restrictions on treatment at the hospital: Although there is no objective evidence such as medical records, in light of the statement that the chairperson recognized the complainant’s report of injury and provided money, it is acknowledged that a minor knee burn was sustained at the time. However, the claim that hospital treatment was forbidden has not been confirmed.
(2) Determination of Whether the Actions Constitute Workplace Harassment
In determining whether conduct constitutes workplace harassment, the courts require more than mere unpleasantness, temporary stress, or inappropriate remarks, and objectively require that deviation from the appropriate scope of work and abuse of a superior position be specifically identified. In particular, there is a tendency to emphasize whether structural infringement such as repetition and continuity, linkage to disadvantages, or organizational pressure is established. The determination of facts is made comprehensively based on objective materials, consistency of third-party statements, the specificity and any contradictions in the parties’ statements, and plausibility based on common experience. Evidence is evaluated in such a way that it is difficult to establish the alleged facts when the core of the claim conflicts with objective materials or multiple statements, or has low plausibility.
1) Nature of participation in assisting with flood cleanup: According to the established facts, it is acknowledged that on the day of the flood, employees from the facility management department assisted with cleanup at the residence for approximately 2–3 hours in the morning. However, based on the materials and statements confirmed to date, the circumstances of participation are predominantly characterized as departmental support encouraged by the facility department head, and there is insufficient objective basis to conclusively regard it as a strict mandatory order issued at the foundation level or one accompanied by sanctions for failure to participate.
2) Complainant 2’s claim that he/she had to return “in the afternoons” for one week” to engage in “disinfection work”: According to the established facts, Complainant 2’s claims of having to return by him/herself in the afternoons for “one week of continuous disinfection” lack supporting objective evidence or third-party testimony, conflict with statements of supervisors in the reporting line, and are relatively implausible in light of the size of the residence and the amount of work there would have been. However, there is considerable plausibility in the circumstance that a short period (10–15 minutes) of disinfection was requested immediately prior to re-occupancy.
This support can be interpreted not as coercion to provide private labor, but rather as emergency relief arising from a destructive natural phenomenon described as a “once-in-a-century heavy rainfall,” and as mutual assistance among colleagues that is socially acceptable under prevailing norms.

2. Coercion to Write a Statement of Explanation
(1) Confirmation of Facts
It has been confirmed through physical documents that Complainant 2 handwrote a total of five statements of explanation during the period of employment. These documents were prepared sporadically at intervals of approximately 2–3 years and include details of specific incidents and measures to prevent recurrence. No record has been found that the preparation of these documents led to formal disciplinary actions such as dismissal or a salary reduction. Complainant 2 acknowledged that the documents were written in relation to his/her own work-related mistakes, and there is no objective evidence that he/she was forced to include false information or unfairly accept responsibility. Therefore, these are deemed internal documents intended to call attention to work-related matters rather than formal disciplinary records.
(2) Determination of Whether the Actions Constitute Workplace Harassment
In an employment relationship, the employer has discretionary authority in personnel management to guide and supervise the employee’s work performance and results in order to maintain organizational operations and work efficiency, and may require the submission of a statement of explanation or report when necessary. Such discretionary authority, so long as there is a work-related necessity, the manner of its exercise is reasonable in light of social norms, and it does not involve excessive disadvantage or infringement of the employee’s dignity, can be interpreted as a legitimate exercise of management rights within the limits that do not constitute an abuse of personnel authority.
In this case, documents were required five times over a period of 10 years and 8 months, approximately once every two years, and they were not concentrated in a specific period or carried out repeatedly, but rather occurred sporadically at the time of individual incidents. Considering that the content of the documents mainly concerned work-related negligence or explanations of specific matters, and that no direct personnel disadvantages such as dismissal or a salary reduction followed their preparation, it is difficult to regard this as a significant deviation from the scope of personnel discretion exercised in accordance with work-related necessity.

IV. Final Determination on This Case
As a result of the investigation, although some of the respondent’s alleged acts have been confirmed as factual, it is difficult to conclude that all of the requirements for establishing workplace harassment under the Labor Standards Act have been satisfied for the following reasons:
① The conduct was legitimate: The acts at issue, such as the instruction to write a book report, the request for statements of explanation, and the reprimand related to potential damage to the cherry tree roots, were legitimate managerial actions based on work-related necessity, including education and training, maintenance of organizational order, and protection of public property.
② The means were proportional: Even if there were some uncomfortable behaviors such as raising one’s voice or making coercive remarks in the course of legitimate work instructions and reprimands, in order to be evaluated as workplace harassment through the abuse of a superior position, the conduct must reach a level that significantly deviates from the appropriate scope of work, such as through repetition and continuity, personal insult, and objective infringement of rights; however, this case does not reach such a level.
③ There is insufficient proof for the claims: The core allegation of harm, namely the “one-week disinfection work at the chairperson’s residence,” lacks sufficient evidence, as it conflicts with objective circumstances and witness statements.
④ The actions are recognized as in alignment with social norms: Assistance with flood cleanup constitutes mutual aid after an undesirable weather event and falls within the range of socially acceptable actions under prevailing norms, and was a one-time occurrence without repetition or continuity.
However, elements of the respondent’s conduct, such as the occasional raising of the voice, direct expressions, and a top-down style of work instructions without sufficient communication may burden the organization’s members, cause discomfort and lead to unnecessary misunderstandings. Therefore, from a preventive perspective, it is necessary to improve communication methods, such as through future training for managers. In addition, to prevent similar disputes in the future, it is necessary to document work instructions and reporting, manage records, and provide prior guidance on grievance-handling procedures for employees.