Display MoreWorkers are not slaves, audit and surveillance are different
HYBE disclosed Min Hee-jin's KakaoTalk chat logs, temporary illegal possession of forensic data without consent, and without the consent of trainer Kang Hyeong-wook to view employee messenger messages , there is a possibility of CCTV surveillance in violation of the Information and Communications Network Act and workplace harassment.
There are two issues that have heated up Korean society recently. The conflict between HYBE Entertainment and Ador CEO Min Hee-jin, and the controversy over Bodeum Company CEO Kang Hyeong-wook's verbal abuse and surveillance of employees. There is something in common in labor relations law between the two seemingly unrelated issues. The question is to what extent is the company's supervision of its executives and employees legal and justifiable?
First, the case of Representative Min. The incident came to light last month when HYBE released KakaoTalk conversation logs between CEO Min and Vice President Ador, claiming it was an attempt to seize management rights. And until recently, HYBE has continued to claim that CEO Min is not qualified to be an Ador manager by disclosing other conversations between CEO Min and Vice President, and even the KakaoTalk conversation transcripts of CEO Min and an acquaintance, to the media.
The problem lies in how HYBE obtained the transcripts. The KakaoTalk conversation released by HYBE is not a direct conversation between HYBE and CEO Min. This is material that HYBE looked into as a third party, in which it did not participate as a party to the conversation. In addition, it includes content prior to the establishment of Ador, and the conversation partner was not limited to Ador's vice-president, so it appears that a wide range of data was obtained, including CEO Min's personal conversations beyond business communication.
Ador claimed that the conversation logs obtained by HYBE were data that were not submitted with CEO Min's consent, and that they were evidence obtained illegally through forensics on devices returned during the audit. If the circumstances of HYBE's acquisition are like this, there is a possibility that the evidentiary capacity and legitimacy of the conversation logs may be damaged due to violations of the Information and Communications Network Act, etc.
Representative Min also revealed his KakaoTalk conversation with HYBE Chairman Bang Si-hyuk and HYBE CEO Park Ji-won at a press conference, but there is a big difference. All of the conversation records released by Representative Min are conversations she had directly with the other party. Therefore, there will be no need to consider the legality of the acquisition of the conversation transcripts disclosed by Representative Min..
.
.
The difference between workers and slaves is that executives and employees and the company have a relationship based on a legally equal contract. HYBE and Bodeum Company may also have attempted to supervise their executives and employees according to their own purposes and needs, but audits are permitted only to the extent possible under contracts and laws. There are also views that regard a company's right to audit as if it were the right to investigate. However, the right of a company to investigate or monitor beyond audit is nowhere written down.
/Labor Attorney Eunsoo Yoo
http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php?key=20240529010002929
i think mhj has a lot of ground to sue hybe on this, regardless of whether the kakao talks proved her breach of trust or conspiring to damage hybe. i think hybe knows that and is willing to risk it just to get her fired.