In the past, and even as recently as January 11th, many people lost their lives because of accidents in the workplace. This issue has been highlighted by the recent collapse of an apartment building in Gwangju where at least 9 lost their lives. This incident made a big impression on the national psyche where everyone could see the horrible scene on news media, especially since it took several days to recover the survivors and missing bodies. As a result, the government published the ‘Serious Accident Punishment Act’ on January 27th, in order to prevent fatal accidents, and to anticipate major accidents, before they occur. Accidents which occurred before publishing of the law aren’t included. Simply stated, the meaning of the law is that the: Serious Accident Punishment Act includes the Serious Industrial Accident Punishment Act and Serious Citizen Accident Punishment Act. Moreover, several rules for safety to prevent accidents have been introduced. Any violation of these shall result in imprisonment for not less than one year or a fine of not more than one billion won, and in the event of an injured or sick person, a fine of not more than seven years or not more than 100 million won.’ Because of the high level of punishment, many companies are currently recruiting safety personnel. This begs the questions, are accidents no longer increasing? Do companies really feel responsible for workers? Unfortunately, this is not the case. The current Serious Accident Punishment Act has its limitations and problems, and in this article, CBT reporters will carefully explore some of them.
  First of all, after the enforcement of the law on January 27, 2022, the original intention of the law was that companies emphasize the importance of safety in their own way and strive to have a safer environment in the workplace. Unfortunately, however, there are some cases where companies deviate from the above intention. Let’s look at a few examples.
  The first is an avoidance of responsibility. In the Serious Accident Punishment Act, literally, punishment is imposed on the business owner or management of the business where the accident occurred. Therefore, there have recently been heads who are resigning from management to escape responsibility. Let’s take, for example, the second death since the enforcement of the law on January 29, where an elevator crash in the Yojin construction project claimed a life. However, management was delegated to professional managers and the head of the company resigned from the front line in 2021 before the law came into effect. In addition, all the family member of the heads of Hallym Construction and IS East-West have resigned. This casts serious doubts on their intentions. It is easy to see various articles online where the government, and other experts, point this move out as cheating. On February 9, 2022, Money’s Pick News came to the conclusion that this is a simply a preemptive move to avoid the threat of punishment until the current ambiguous standards of law are more clearly established through clear precedents. The government said that punishment are to be based on the influence of management, but failed to provide a specific itemized list of consequences.
  The second is the ambiguity of the law and the resulting labor union conflicts. The first example is the varied interpretation between government ministries. The Ministry of Employment and Labor interpreted that a separate corporation established overseas was not subject to the law. However, it is interpreted differently by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in their recent distribution of “Penalty Comment on Serious Accident Punishment Act” to prosecutors’ offices nationwide. Based on Article 3 of the Serious Accident Punishment Act and criminal law ‘foreign law penalty rule of natives’, the prosecution said, “Foreign corporations established under foreign law also work through dispatch, and if Korean corporations or institutions actually control, operate, or manage the workplace, the law applies.” The two institutions of the same lines have come up with a contrasting interpretations. In addition, according to the Ministry of Environment’s explanation of the Serious Citizen Accident Punishment Act in December last year, if there are defects in raw materials (like spring water) used in the production, management, and design processes, they are also subject to the law. However, according to the original enforcement ordinance of the law, substances subject to management obligations by managers include humidifiers and disinfectants under the Chemical Product Safety Act plus pesticides, and radioactive drugs. As a result, controversy arose over whether all products were subject to punishment under the law in the overinterpreted commentary, and an elevator was included instead of water that was consumed. Although the law presupposes criminal punishment, the interpretation of government agencies is changing. As such, there are still many ambiguous parts of the Serious Disaster Punishment Act, so companies are suspending businesses that have a high possibility of accidents in order not to become precedents that clarify the law. These parts are consequently causing conflict between labor and management. According to the Gyeongbuk Daily, some companies ceased all work with a high risk of accidents. As a result, the backlash from related companies and workers is severe. This is because profits are reduced by at least 30%, and unions are demanding the cancellation of the decision, but the conflict still remains.

By Yoo Gyeong-chan
jg010077@cbnu.ac.kr
By Seok Yeon-ji
duswl1102@cbnu.ac.kr