When the Manual Changes, Your Investigation Process Must Change Too
On July 2, 2026, Korea's Ministry of Employment and Labor released a revised Workplace Harassment Prevention and Response Manual. Two changes stand out. First, the investigation process — from intake to remedial action — is now spelled out step by step. Second, for the first time, the manual sets out criteria for handling false reports, an issue employers have been raising for years.
The manual is not law. You will not be fined simply for departing from it. But labor inspectors use it during workplace audits, and the Labor Relations Commission and courts lean on it when judging after the fact whether an employer's response was adequate. Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act says only that an employer "shall conduct an objective investigation without delay" — the manual is what fills in the meaning of "objective."
The problem is that in many SMEs, the entire work rule reads something like: "The company shall investigate reports upon receipt." No investigating body, no deadline, no victim protection measures. When an incident actually occurs, there is nothing to act on — and responding without a framework makes a procedural violation finding likely regardless of the outcome.
Rebuilding the Process Stage by Stage, from Intake to Action
Use two intake channels. If reports can only go to HR or an internal grievance officer, an employee cannot report at all when the HR head or the CEO is the alleged offender. Run a parallel external channel — an outside labor law firm, or a dedicated email and phone line — and publicize it internally.
Consider victim protection measures immediately upon intake. These include changing the work location or granting paid leave, and measures may not be imposed against the victim's wishes. Saying "we'll take action once the investigation concludes" is itself a potential violation.
Screen investigators for conflicts of interest. Exclude the alleged offender's direct supervisor and anyone with a stake in the outcome. When the CEO or an owner-family member is the alleged offender, an internal investigation will rarely be accepted as objective; commissioning an outside expert is effectively the only viable route.
Keep properly formatted records. Statements should carry the deponent's signature, date, and the names of those present; recordings require prior consent. Disclosing information learned during an investigation carries an administrative fine of up to KRW 5 million. The moment "I heard so-and-so filed the report" circulates internally, liability attaches to the company.
Remedial action and adverse treatment are separated by a thin line. Once harassment is confirmed, you must take necessary measures such as reassignment, transfer, or discipline — but if those measures land on the victim, they become adverse treatment punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a KRW 30 million fine. As a rule, design separation measures so that the offender is the one who moves.
Writing the New False-Report Standard into Your Rules
"Not substantiated" and "false report" are entirely different things. In most cases where harassment is not confirmed, the reporter genuinely experienced distress but the statutory elements — superiority in workplace position or relationship, conduct beyond the reasonable scope of work, and physical or mental suffering — were not all met. Treating such cases as false reports exposes the company to liability in the opposite direction.
Draft the disciplinary provision narrowly. Language such as "reporting with knowledge of the falsity of the allegation and with intent to harm another" — requiring both intent and a harmful purpose — is appropriate. Wording like "reports not substantiated by investigation" produces a chilling effect and can itself be assessed as a breach of the employer's prevention duty.
A fair number of cases end with the facts unverifiable. Rather than forcing a conclusion, it is more practical to write follow-up steps into the rules: separating the parties, manager interviews, and a re-check three to six months later.
Work Rules and Internal Policy Checklist
Building Defenses Before an Incident Happens
In practice, manager training delivers the largest return. Many reports arise not from malicious conduct but because a manager cannot distinguish legitimate direction from harassment. Pressing a deadline is direction; repeating "can't you even do this?" in front of colleagues is harassment. Performance feedback is direction; excluding one specific employee from meetings and team dinners is harassment. Case-based training that drills this boundary prevents more incidents than a rewritten policy does.
If you are pursuing ISO 37301 (compliance management systems) certification or already operate an internal reporting channel, integrate harassment reports rather than running a separate track. The intake, investigation, documentation, and reporting processes already exist, which cuts duplicated investment and keeps operations consistent.
KITIM's HR and labor consulting covers a diagnostic review of your current work rules and internal policies, investigation procedures designed to the revised manual, prevention training for managers and all staff, and outside investigator support when an incident does occur. Miss the window to update your rules and the first case will cost you several times over. If you need to check whether your policies meet the revised manual's standards, contact KITIM.