Workplace Harassment in Korea, Part 2: Investigation Duty

In Part 1 of this series, we covered the statutory definition of workplace harassment and the basic framework under the Labor Standards Act. This post goes deeper: when does the duty to investigate kick in, and how thorough does an investigation actually need to done?

When the Duty Arises

Article 76-3, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates two independent triggers: either (a) receives a report, or (b) becomes aware of ("인지") facts suggesting workplace harassment has occurred.

"Awareness" is the harder of the two to pin down in practice. It does not require the employer to already be certain harassment occurred. Realistically, the employer's awareness must be specific and concrete enough that an investigation is actually possible.

Two follow-on points that HR teams frequently miss:

• The duty is not limited to the four corners of the original complaint. If, during an investigation into one reported incident, other potentially harassing conduct comes to light — even conduct the complainant did not raise — the employer's investigation duty extends to that newly discovered conduct as well. It cannot be excluded simply because "it wasn't part of the reported complaint."
• The duty survives the accused employee's resignation. If the person accused of harassment resigns mid-investigation, the employer must still investigate to the extent possible and take necessary protective measures for the affected employee.

How Much Investigation Is "Enough"

The current text of Article 76-3(2) requires the employer to investigate "objectively" (객관적으로). This word was specifically added because the original 2019 version required only an investigation, with no benchmark for quality. Under the current law, an investigation that is procedurally sloppy or one-sided can itself trigger an administrative fine.

These are few factors, among others, that can amount to an “objective” investigation:

Full investigation, not an abbreviated one. Merely interviewing the complainant and witnesses the complainant nominates may not be sufficient. Both sides - including the accused party's side of the story, and any evidence or witnesses relevant to it- generally need to be part of the record.

Fair process. The accused should generally have a meaningful opportunity to respond — and the complainant should be kept informed of how the investigation is progressing and what the outcome was.

No self-investigation where the employer is implicated. This is the specific issue MOEL's July 2026 manual revision addresses directly: where the person reported as the harasser is the employer itself, or someone acting for the employer such as senior management, that person must be excluded from running or influencing the investigation, with a clear recusal process for the investigation committee.

Investigation Duty Checklist

• Does your standard investigation protocol include interviewing the accused and any witnesses relevant to their account, rather than only the complainant's nominated witnesses?
• Do your investigators apply and document a consistent method for assessing credibility when accounts conflict?
• Is there a designated fallback investigator or committee recusal procedure if a senior manager or the business owner is named as the accused?
• Does your process keep the complainant informed of progress and outcome, and give the accused a meaningful opportunity to respond?

A Note on This Series

This post is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Whether a given investigation satisfies the employer's statutory duty is highly fact-specific, and employers facing an active complaint should seek advice tailored to their situation.

If your current investigation protocol hasn't been tested against these standards, it's worth reviewing before a real complaint puts it to the test. Feel free toget in touch to talk through your process.

© 2026 SJ Chun. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, copied, or republished, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from the author.