Workplace Harassment in Korea, Part 5: What Counts as "Exceeding the Reasonable Scope of Work"

A manager assigns a task the employee cannot possibly finish in the time given. Another manager scolds a junior employee harshly, but only once, and only because the job genuinely demanded it. Which one of these “exceed the reasonable scope of work”?

This is Part 5 of our series on workplace harassment under Korean labor law. Part 1 covered the basic legal definition. Part 2 covered the employer's investigation duty. Part 3 covered protecting the affected employee during that investigation. Part 4 covered how a report reaches the company and what happens once it is misused. This post looks at the element that causes a lot of confusion: what "exceeding the reasonable scope of work" actually means, using new case examples added to the Ministry of Employment and Labor's (MOEL) manual on July 2, 2026.

A Quick Recap of the Legal Standard

Under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act, workplace harassment requires three elements together. A person uses a position or relationship of superiority, exceeds the reasonable scope of work, and causes physical or mental suffering or a worsened working environment for another employee.

The second element is probably the hardest one to apply. Nearly every disputed case involves a manager giving an instruction that, on its face, looks like an ordinary business directive. The question is whether that order was necessary and proportionate to the job.

The Manual's New Guidance: Looking Past the Surface

The July 2026 revised manual points to three patterns in particular.

Assigning work that is clearly unnecessary for the job. If a task serves no real business purpose, the fact that it was framed as an instruction does not protect it.

Demanding something the employee cannot actually perform. An assignment with no realistic path to completion, given the time, resources, or authority available, is not a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion.

Ordering work far below the employee's actual skill or experience level, without a legitimate reason. Deliberately assigning demeaning, low-value tasks to a qualified employee can itself be the harassment, even without a single harsh word being said.

Three New Examples Where the Manual Found No Harassment

The same update also adds examples going the other way, which matters just as much for employers trying to draw the line correctly.

A reporter received a work instruction by KakaoTalk in the early morning hours. Given the nature of news reporting and the genuine need for fast turnaround on breaking coverage, the manual treated this as within the reasonable scope of work.

A trauma center physician was reprimanded for a mistake, in a field that demands a high degree of skill and precision. The manual treated the rebuke as legitimate correction tied to training in a high-stakes specialty, not harassment.

A supervisor swore at a subordinate once, during a phone call, in an isolated incident, while otherwise speaking respectfully day to day. A single lapse, against a backdrop of ordinarily respectful conduct, did not meet the standard.

The pattern across all three is context. Frequency, the nature of the industry, and whether the conduct was an aberration or a pattern all factor into whether an instruction or a rebuke crosses the line.

The same July 2026 manual update also added new guidance on the opposite problem, false or abusive reporting. We cover that in Part 4 of this series.

What This Means for Employers in Korea

Three practical points follow from this update.

Do not assume an instruction is safe simply because it was framed as a business directive. Ask whether the task was actually necessary, achievable, and proportionate to the employee's role. If not, the business framing will not save it.

Document context around difficult conversations. A single sharp correction, tied to a genuine performance or safety issue and consistent with how the manager otherwise treats staff, sits in a very different legal position than a recurring pattern.

Train managers on this specific distinction. Most managers understand not to shout or insult. Fewer understand that a calmly delivered, facially normal instruction can still cross the line.

Series Note

This Part 5 covered the "reasonable scope of work" element using new case examples from the July 2026 revised MOEL manual. It follows Part 1 (the legal definition), Part 2 (the investigation duty), Part 3 (victim protection during the investigation), and Part 4 (how reports reach the company, and the manual's new stance on abusive reporting).

---

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific workplace harassment issue in Korea, please consult qualified Korean legal counsel.

For any inquiries, please feel free to contact sjchun@seoulcounsel.com.