온라인 바카라사이트

①Who did 온라인 바카라사이트 represent?

온라인 바카라사이트 (attorneys Kim Bo-ra, Na Hwang-young and Ha Da-hee) represented a hospital (the “debtor”) at which a resident who had filed the application worked (the “creditor”).

②Case background

온라인 바카라사이트 filed a report with the debtor, arguing that he had been inflicted damage due to harassment at workplace by several residents and physicians, and filed a petition with the Employment and Labor Office. 온라인 바카라사이트 filed an application for injunctive relief, in which he sought to be separated from the persons engaging in harassment at workplace such as violation of his moral rights and to arrange a compatible work schedule since the debtor was required to take appropriate actions for the investigation period to protect the affected worker pursuant to the Labor Standards Act.

The district court (specifically, the 51^st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court) denied 온라인 바카라사이트’s application, determining “The debtor developed measures to separate 온라인 바카라사이트 from the persons engaging in the reported harassment at workplace and has implemented the measures to this date for 온라인 바카라사이트. It is difficult for this court to deem the asserted concern that the debtor might suspend the implementation of the measures has been substantiated. Under the Labor Standards Act, it is sufficient for an employer to take appropriate actions to protect injured employees. As long as there is an agreement on an on-call duty between 온라인 바카라사이트 and the debtor, there is no ground for the debtor to make an individual specific agreement with 온라인 바카라사이트 on the designation of dates on which 온라인 바카라사이트 is assigned for on-call duties.”

The high court (specifically, the 1^st Civil Division of the Seoul High Court) dismissed 온라인 바카라사이트’s appeal, determining “The district court’s decision is reasonable. With regard to the assertions additionally made by 온라인 바카라사이트 before this appeal court, certain conditions attached by the debtor to 온라인 바카라사이트’s application for annual leave do not constitute disadvantageous treatment allegedly resulted from 온라인 바카라사이트’s report of harassment at workplace.”

온라인 바카라사이트 filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Korea, but the appeal was dismissed.

The issue was an employer’s obligation to take an action to protect an injured worker during the investigation period, which is prescribed in Article 76-3.3 of the Labor Standards Act. Considering that there are no established precedents, 온라인 바카라사이트 made argument on the basis of legal theory regarding the meaning of an employer’s obligation to take action, elements giving force to the employer’s obligation to take action and the scope of the employer’s obligation to take action.

The creditor reported several people as persons harassing the creditor in the workplace. In addition, the creditor included measures taken to separate him from them in relation to work schedule, use of the watch office, and use of vacation in the relieves requested by the creditor by filing the application for provisional injunction. 온라인 바카라사이트 distinguished between those included in the measures already taken by the debtor to protect the creditor and those that were beyond the scope of the employer's obligation to take measures under the Labor Standards Act. With regard to the former, 온라인 바카라사이트 meticulously argued and proved the separation measures was being implemented by the debtor. With regard to the latter, 온라인 바카라사이트 refuted the claims of the creditor by making assertions on the basis of legal theory, arguing that during the investigation period before the fact that the alleged harassment had actually occurred was confirmed, the creditor was not granted the unlimited right to demand the employer to take any protective measures that the creditor wanted the employer to take for him.

This case will be a meaningful precedent in that it provided standards for the meaning and requirements of the employer's obligation to take action under the Labor Standards Act in a case of provisional injunction for violation of the employer's obligation to take action in the event of workplace harassment or a claim for damages.

In addition, if a worker abuses the workplace harassment reporting system before the results of the workplace harassment investigation are released, this case will be a good reference example for the company's countermeasures if the worker requests the employer for certain working conditions.