[Consumerwide_ HueSoung, Jun Reporter / Yohan, Bok Reporter] The Shinsegae group affiliated business, Gmarket, is at the center of the sexual harassment argument. The story lays on the fact that a Gmarket team leader did sexual harrassment on one of his team members. The victim(a lady) who gave a tip-off is known to be over 15 years younger.

At the moment, the disciplinary action against the team leader who is the assailant has been completed. Nevertheless, the victim has given a tip-off about the working environment of the Shinsegae group, which makes the victims of any sexual harrassment quit work. Yet, Gmarket says that they did best by giving disciplinary action to the assailant.

Presently, the victim has accused the assailant according to the Sexual Violence Crime Special Act. In addition, she has also reported to the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the National Human Rights Commission aiming at the Shinsegae-Gmarket. Hence, soon the real picture will turn out through each authority.

There were tons of missing points between Shinsegae and the victim when we checked both tip-off emails, which we received on the 6th and titled with 'I am tipping off about the working environment of Shinsegae group, which makes the victims of any sexual harrassment to quit work.', 11am on 6th, and Gmarket.

First of all, the sexual harassment event occurred between a Gmarket of Shinsegae group team leader and one of his team members (a lady staff member).  The lady staff is single while the team leader is a married man with a wife and children (the victim said). The age gap between the victim and the team leader is over 15 years. Gmarket did not say anything about the age.

The time point of the sexual harassment event was different between the victim and Gmarket. The victim said that he (the team leader) repeatedly asked her to call him O-ppa. Not only so, he hugged her by force. (* Oppa initially means 'older brother', which you use in family and friends' circles. Some extended meaning can be a boyfriend who is older. Hence, depending on the context, 'being asked to call an 'oppa' can be taken as a serious problem. In addition, considering the Korean culture in the working environment, where vertical power takes place(whether age or position), being constantly asked to call oppa can be perceived as sexual harrassment.) On the other hand, Gmarket said that the event during last October workshop, and there has been a number of department staff members in the field. Regarding the sexual harassment, they didn't mention details. 2 months after the event, a sexual harassment related issue was reported, and Gmarket decided on a 1 month suspension from office after confirming the sexual harassment of the team leader through a personnel committee and a consultant from a law firm.

But, the victim said that the Gmarket personnel team gave her sexual humiliation while the team was investigating. She also sees that a 1month suspension from office is a 'Som-bang-mang-ie' (cotton ball torch) punishment considering the weight of the crime. The victim said, “After an investigation it came to be that he did sexual harassment. As a result, the assailant got a month's suspension from office, which I see is a 'Som-bang-mang-ie' (cotton ball torch) punishment considering the weight of the crime. Currently, the assailant is maintaining his position, duty, department while being employed at Gmarket. During the investigation process, the Gmarket personnel team called me in the evening to appeal the fact of sexual harrassment in the way sexually humiliate."

In addition, the victim said that Gmarket forced her to move to the department where there is a non-preference department which has tasks closely related to the assailant. The victim said, "I repeatedly issued about the fact I sent to the department which has tasks closely related to the assailant. Not only so, the department was on the same floor and foot traffic was overlapped. But, the personnel team forced me by telling them that if I don't accept it, they will position me at the dept. where the assailant works. I could not 'not remember' the time being so difficult to get employed after the Covid19. And, it also was a hard time till I got employed here, which is a major company with a permanent position. So, I chose to work in the department where the personnel team suggested. The department where I got repositioned was required to communicate with the assailant frequently during a year. So I appealed to the company that they would reposition the assailant as well. But the Gmarket personnel team has ignored them."

The victim said that the Gmarket has denied even an unpaid time off based on evidence which is not even mentioned in any employment regulation. She raised her voice, "I appealed for unpaid time off based on a  university hospital medical certificate because I was caught in a situation of working with an assailant who's been accused of a sexual crime after his suspension (1 month). But, I got denied. The personnel team said that only causes of hospital treatment and contagious disease can be allowed for time off, which is no evidence in any employment regulation. And, denied my request for no reason. And, I see that it is unfair treatment against the Labor Standards Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Law". She said that after she got to work with a sexual crime-assailant and was denied unpaid time off, eventually, she quit her job as if she had been pushed away.

Regarding the claim of the victim, Gmarket drew lines by answering that there are parts that are different. A Gmarket related person said during an interview with Consumerwide, "We respected the victim, and we gave her special time off. Even gave multiple options. Because the victim wanted a change of department, the primary separation action was practiced. However, the victim also wanted the assailant's department to change. This inquiry wasn't accepted. We checked with our law firm. And, they said that already the first separation had been completed following the wish of the victim by changing the department of the victim. Because of all this, if there is additional change which follows with the assailant, this leaves a question about whether unfair switch-placement or double disciplinary action."

The victim has refuted that the argument about Gmarket is not true. She claimed that the personnel team had not given her enough break time by refusing the unpaid time off. And, they skipped the part, the 'department option' was closely related to the assailant." Personal sick leave for a month is staff and executives can apply. Thus, the victim was proceeding according to the regulation by submitting the university hospital medical certificate and petition. So she wonders about whether it's been the right treatment by seeing that the victim, who has taken plenty of leave according to 'wish', quit her job, whereas the assailant goes to work as if nothing has happened. "I might have jumped to the conclusion. But, I perceive that the Gmarket purposely led me to leave by not giving me the right treatment. So that they might not be at the center of attention. Since Shinsegae has undertaken the Gmarket with a large sum of money, their performance has not been active. While having this atmosphere, they probably have judged that a sexual assault could be a risk for business." In time, the victim has accused the assailant according to the sexual violence crime exemption law. As for the Shinsegae-Gmarket, she has reported to the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the National Human Rights Commission.

A Gmarket-related person said, "The victim might think the assailant needs to be fired. In fact, this is the part where arguments lie. We've responded faithfully to the Ministry of Employment and Labor petition, and are currently waiting for the result." Besides, "We are regretful that this kind of event has happened in our daily workplace. What matters the most is that we prevent reoccurrence. We're planning to strengthen education, aiming for the settlement of a wholesome work culture."