An interpreter was hired by a Korean branch of a well-known Japanese cosmetics company to assist with language barriers. However, her life took an unexpected turn when the CEO contacted her urgently in May of the previous year. She was informed that his wife had fallen ill and required emergency surgery. Without hesitation, the interpreter rushed to the hospital as per the CEO’s request. She found herself providing round-the-clock care for the CEO’s wife as he was absent from the hospital. Her duties extended beyond her job description, and she found herself assisting the CEO with personal tasks like his child’s dermatologist appointments and researching skincare products for acne. Her colleagues noticed that the CEO’s instructions were crossing professional boundaries, making her feel uneasy. The situation took a confusing turn when the CEO referred her to the company’s disciplinary committee for “leakage of business secrets.”
The interpreter had an unusual experience with her colleagues when she had to replace a urinal while caring for the CEO’s spouse. However, this was deemed a violation of business confidentiality, which left her disheartened. She decided to seek legal counsel and appoint a labor attorney. This move prompted the CEO to dissolve the disciplinary committee, effectively avoiding any immediate action. However, the interpreter was frustrated and felt trapped, so she reported the situation as workplace harassment. The company entrusted one of the largest law firms in the country to investigate the harassment report. But the interpreter raised concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation, pointing out that the law firm had a legal advisory contract with the company, which could lead to a conflict of interest. Despite her objections, the law firm concluded that the CEO’s actions did not amount to workplace harassment. A debate ensued over the interpreter’s role, with the company arguing that it included “CEO’s family support.” However, the interpreter felt that replacing a urinal went beyond the scope of her role.
Feeling frustrated and unsure of the future, recent events have exposed a major flaw in the Labor Standards Act. There are currently no specific regulations outlining the subject and method of investigating workplace harassment, resulting in a growing demand for more precise investigation methods to ensure fairness and accuracy in the law. Meanwhile, the company involved in the incident maintains that the interpreter’s assigned tasks were within her agreed scope of work, and that their consulting attorneys were not present during the legal advisory firm’s investigation. Nevertheless, this case has ignited a larger conversation about professional responsibilities and the pressing need for stronger legal protections in the workplace. It is a matter that affects us all and requires immediate attention.
https://imnews.imbc.com/replay/2023/nwdesk/article/6526859_36199.html
https://www.fmkorea.com/6204142917