2025-03-24
Media Reports on the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Findings in the Employee B Case
Min Hee-jin’s legal counsel told <Monthly Chosun> that “this matter is not about a fine having been imposed, but rather a prior notification before the imposition of a fine, after which any objections will be reviewed, and the fine will only be imposed if there are no objections in the end,” adding that “the fine has not yet been imposed; this is merely a prior notification.”
Former CEO Min Hee-jin of “ADOR,” a label under HYBE, has received prior notification of a fine from the Labor Office following a complaint filed by former ADOR employee B. B is the individual who, through a Monthly Chosun report in August of last year, stated their intention to file civil and criminal charges against CEO Min.
On the 24th, the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter “the Labor Office”) announced that, as a result of investigating the complaint filed by B against former CEO Min Hee-jin, some legal violations by the former CEO were confirmed. As a result of this matter, the former CEO has received prior notification of a fine.
Previously, B raised allegations against former CEO Min including: ▲workplace harassment (verbal abuse, etc.) and ▲suspicion of biased intervention in the sexual harassment case involving Deputy CEO A. Against Deputy CEO A (who has since resigned), B separately raised ▲suspicion of workplace harassment (sexual harassment, etc.).
The Labor Office partially recognized the workplace harassment by the former CEO as alleged by B. The Labor Office stated, “It is determined that the statements, etc., continuously made by the former CEO to B exceeded the appropriate scope of work duties and could cause physical and mental distress to the complainant or worsen the work environment, thus constituting workplace harassment,” and announced that “a fine was pre-imposed on the perpetrator (the former CEO) and the case was administratively closed.”
The Labor Office evaluated this case based on multiple laws and regulations, and it was reported that among these, regarding the key issue of suspected biased intervention in the sexual harassment case involving Deputy CEO A, a violation of Article 76-3, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act was recognized.
The Labor Office determined that “(Ms. Min) copying the investigation results reported by the chief responsibility officer to Deputy CEO A via internal email and advising them to file an objection constitutes a violation of the duty to conduct an objective investigation,” and issued prior notification of a fine.
However, some of the various allegations B raised against the former CEO were not recognized. Based on “laws regarding measures for sexual harassment incidents,” the Labor Office determined that there was no legal violation, considering: ▲an investigation was conducted without delay on the day of the report; ▲claims or evidence presented by the complainant were not excluded without reasonable grounds; and ▲it was not confirmed that the complainant experienced sexual humiliation during the sexual harassment reporting process.
B told Monthly Chosun, “There are many civil and criminal cases I’ve filed against the former CEO, and this is the first result to come out. This is a matter I received by registered mail today,” adding, “This Labor Office ruling holds great significance for me. It will also affect the civil and criminal cases related to this matter.” B continued, “I’m relieved that a favorable result came out, and I intend to respond diligently going forward.”
Regarding suspicions raised in some quarters about an alleged collusive relationship between B and HYBE, B drew a clear line, saying, “Since I received the registered mail from the Labor Office today, I don’t think it can be called timing,” and “This is a completely separate matter unrelated to NewJeans or HYBE.”
Meanwhile, regarding the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment by Deputy CEO A, the Labor Office stated, “No legal violations were confirmed, and corrective guidance was provided to the workplace for the prevention of workplace harassment and sexual harassment and to prevent recurrence in the future.”
Regarding this case, labor attorney Ahn stated, “Under the Labor Standards Act, measures for workplace harassment incidents, in cases involving employee-to-employee matters, are principally based on the employer’s own investigation,” adding, “Unless there are circumstances such as the investigation itself being biased or inadequate, we tend to recognize the employer’s investigation results. It appears the Labor Office made a judgment respecting the results, viewing the law firm’s investigation results as valid.”
After this article was reported, Min Hee-jin’s legal counsel told Monthly Chosun that “this matter is not about a fine having been imposed, but rather a prior notification before the imposition of a fine, after which any objections will be reviewed, and the fine will only be imposed if there are no objections in the end,” adding that “the fine has not yet been imposed; this is merely a prior notification.”