On 2 July 2026, Korea’s Ministry of Employment and Labor (“MOEL“) released a revised edition of its Guidelines on the Prevention and Response to Workplace Harassment (the “Revised Guidelines“).
The Revised Guidelines follow MOEL’s amendment to its workplace harassment case-handling procedures in April 2026 and are intended to strengthen the fairness of workplace investigations while incorporating judicial precedents and practical case examples accumulated since the previous revision in 2023. Alongside the Revised Guidelines, MOEL also published updated guidance materials for employers and employees, as well as a revised Model Rules of Employment.
This Legal Update outlines the key revisions, highlights MOEL’s policy direction, and discusses practical implications for employers operating in Korea.
Background
Increasing Number of Workplace Harassment Complaints
Since the workplace harassment provisions of the Labor Standards Act came into force in July 2019, the number of reported cases has continued to rise. According to MOEL, workplace harassment complaints increased from 8,961 cases in 2022 to 16,373 cases in 2025.
While this trend reflects greater awareness of employee rights, concerns have also emerged regarding the increasing number of complaints that fall outside the intended purpose of the statutory framework or otherwise constitute an abuse of the reporting process.
Concenrs Regarding the Fairness of Internal Investigations
Another issue repeatedly raised in practice is the fairness of investigations where the employer itself is the alleged harasser. In response, MOEL amended its investigation guidelines in April 2026 to allow labor inspectors to directly investigate complaints involving employers at small workplaces. The Revised Guidelines further elaborate on how employers should ensure fairness during internal investigations.
Strengthening the Fairness of Internal Investigations
- Excluding the Alleged Employer from the Investigation Process: Where the employer is the alleged perpetrator of workplace harassment, the Revised Guidelines recommend that employers either involve external professionals or institutions in the investigation or exclude the alleged employer from the investigation, reporting, and approval process altogether.
- Investigation Committee and Challenge Procedures: The Revised Guidelines also recommend establishing an internal investigation committee. Employees should be informed of the committee’s composition, procedures, and investigation process, and should be allowed to challenge the participation of committee members whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Committee members should likewise be permitted to voluntarily recuse themselves where appropriate. In addition, employers are encouraged to provide complainants with a sufficient explanation of the investigation results and the basis for their conclusions.
- Revision of the Model Rules of Employment: To reflect these procedural safeguards, MOEL has also revised its Model Rules of Employment. Employers are encouraged to review and update their internal rules and investigation procedures accordingly.
Expanded Guidance on Determining Workplace Harassment and Employer Obligations
- Additional Case Examples: The Revised Guidelines include numerous judicial decisions and practical examples accumulated since the 2023 revision. The examples are organized according to each stage of the investigation process, the legal elements of workplace harassment, and different types of workplace conduct, while presenting both recognized and rejected harassment cases to promote greater consistency in decision-making.
- Clarification of the Legal Requirements: The Revised Guidelines clarify that workplace harassment may be established even where the alleged harasser is of the same or lower rank than the victim if the individual exercises de facto superiority within the workplace. They also explain that conduct presented as a work instruction may nevertheless exceed the legitimate scope of managerial authority where it is clearly unnecessary or objectively unreasonable. Conversely, examples of conduct found not to constitute workplace harassment include work instructions given outside normal working hours where required by the nature of the business, disciplinary criticism provided for legitimate educational purposes, and isolated or accidental inappropriate remarks.
- Employer’s Duty to Take Appropriate Measures: The Revised Guidelines also expand on employers’ statutory obligations by referring to court decisions holding that: i) an employer’s duty to investigate may arise even in the absence of a formal complaint if workplace harassment becomes apparent through collective employee petitions or exit interviews; ii) delayed investigations may result in a failure to satisfy the employer’s obligation to protect the alleged victim during the investigation period; iii) personnel transfers implemented without adequate consideration of the victim’s circumstances may constitute adverse treatment; and iv) investigation reports are generally subject to statutory confidentiality obligations.
Guidance on Misuse of the Workplace Harassment Reporting System
- Court Decisions Recognizing Disciplinary Measures: The Revised Guidelines acknowledge that excessive or unfounded complaints that deviate from the purpose of the workplace harassment regime are undesirable. They cite several court decisions recognizing that disciplinary action may be justified where: i) repeated complaints lacking objective grounds interfere with business operations or disrupt workplace order; ii) an employee repeatedly files complaints amid ongoing conflicts with co-workers while obtaining paid leave; or iii) false complaints are filed for the purpose of avoiding disciplinary action against the complainant.
- MOEL’s Enforcement Policy: MOEL also announced that it intends to process repetitive or abusive complaints more efficiently so that administrative resources can be focused on cases involving genuine workplace harassment.
Support Measures for Small Businesses
- Expansion of Prevention Training: MOEL plans to expand its free workplace harassment prevention training, operated jointly with the Korea Employment and Labor Education Institute, particularly for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Additional measures to assist small businesses in resolving workplace disputes are also under consideration.
- Greater Use of Expert Review Committees: MOEL also intends to strengthen the operation of Workplace Harassment Expert Review Committees within regional labor offices to promote more consistent and specialized assessments of complex cases.
Practical Implications for Employers
Review Internal Policies and Investigation Procedures
Employers should review their workplace policies and internal investigation procedures in light of the Revised Guidelines, including provisions relating to: i) the establishment of investigation committees; ii) procedures for challenging or recusing committee members; and iii) excluding the alleged employer from the investigation process.
Companies should also consider establishing protocols for engaging external investigators, particularly for complaints involving senior management or executive officers.
Ensure Prompt and Well-Documented Investigations
The judicial precedents referenced in the Revised Guidelines underscore the importance of conducting investigations promptly, implementing appropriate interim protective measures, and maintaining comprehensive documentation throughout the investigation process.
Employers should also note that the duty to investigate may arise even without a formal complaint where there are objective indications that workplace harassment has occurred.
Respond Carefully to Abusive Complaints
While the Revised Guidelines suggest that repetitive, unfounded, or false complaints may in appropriate circumstances justify disciplinary action, employers should exercise caution before taking any adverse measures.
Retaliatory dismissal or other unfavorable treatment based solely on an employee’s workplace harassment report remains subject to criminal sanctions under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, employers should objectively assess the factual basis and circumstances of each complaint before determining any disciplinary response.
