🔗 Channel A’s Questions and ADOR’s Responses Regarding NewJeans Manager Ms. A’s Email (Channel A Exclusive Report)

Q. What is ADOR’s position regarding the email sent by Manager A?

A. Through an email reply, we explained to the manager in question that urging the signing of a direct contract between the artist and a brand while excluding the company, as a member of ADOR, is a clear “act injurious to the company” that aids the artist’s violation of the exclusive contract, and that under company policy, one must not arbitrarily format a laptop, which is a company asset. We also reiterated that there was no coercive act whatsoever in the process of requesting an explanation regarding the submission of the laptop that was formatted to an unrecoverable state.

Q. The manager claims that they merely conveyed the members’ intent regarding the advertiser’s contact and that there was nothing based on their own will or judgment.

A. As a member of ADOR, the manager must conduct work so that the exclusive contract signed between the company and the artist can be fulfilled smoothly. Under the exclusive contract, the artist has the obligation to perform entertainment activities only through ADOR. Even if the artist requested to convey the intent to sign a direct contract with an advertiser, it was necessary for the manager to explain the content of the exclusive contract to the artist so that they perform entertainment activities through the company, or if explanation was not possible, to inform a superior within the company so that coordination could take place between the company and the artist.

Q. The manager claims that they mentioned the brand to which they conveyed the intent as they remembered it at the time, and that they never tried to hide it.

A. The manager themselves admits that they communicated to urge the signing of a bilateral contract between the artist and the advertiser while excluding the company. This is a clear violation of company regulations and is an act injurious to the company.

Q. The manager claims that they were demanded to submit the laptop during the investigation process and were not allowed to go home until they submitted it.

A. ADOR inevitably issued a standby order for the manager and demanded the return of the laptop, which is a company asset. In this process, there was no coercive act whatsoever, such as confinement. All work-related information performed by a member using a laptop, which is a company asset, must be returned without arbitrary deletion. After receiving the demand to submit the laptop, the manager received the laptop from someone else only after several hours had passed and submitted it to the company, but they submitted it after formatting it so that it was completely unrecoverable. The manager made it impossible to even check what data was deleted during the formatting process.

Q. The manager claims that there was a demand for their personal mobile phone.

A. The manager delayed the submission of the laptop making various excuses, and received the laptop from someone else only after several hours had passed and submitted it to the company, but they submitted it after formatting it so that it was completely unrecoverable. The manager made it impossible to even check what data was deleted during the formatting process. ADOR requested an explanation for this, but the manager avoided answering and hurriedly left the scene. We called the manager, who had left while avoiding answers, to ask over the phone about the circumstances of arbitrarily formatting the laptop, etc. Since we received a response implying there was no problem, we merely asked over the phone if they could submit their mobile phone in that case; there was no coercive act. The manager conducted most of their work through a mobile phone messenger app, and voluntarily showed their messenger screen to the HR employee waiting for the laptop submission, asking questions such as whether they had to leave all these chat rooms if they received a standby order, showing that there were many work conversation windows. Through this, we confirmed the fact that work data existed on the mobile phone.

Q. The manager stated, “I thought that ADOR executives, as management, would select and convey only the content necessary from the company’s perspective to the members or legal representatives.”

A. It is difficult to grasp exactly what is meant by the remark claimed by the manager, “I thought that ADOR executives, as management, would select and convey only the content necessary* from the company’s perspective to the members or legal representatives,” but the manager has the obligation and responsibility to convey the company’s position to the artist without distortion and to communicate so that misunderstandings and conflicts do not arise between the company and the artist.

(Note: The source text contained a typo “피룡한” which was translated as “necessary” (필요한) based on context.)

Q. Are there other reasons for conducting the investigation on the manager besides the known issue of communication with the advertiser?

A. We cannot disclose detailed information regarding the misconduct of a member and the investigation process thereof. The company has requested an interview several times to give the manager an opportunity to explain, but the employee is refusing all of them.