Legal remedy unlikely for Hey Jini employee over labor allegations

A former Kidsworks employee faces difficulty seeking legal recourse for alleged 16-hour workdays and unpaid overtime because the statute of limitations likely expired around the summer of 2020. While the worker claims an annual salary increase of only 5%, Hey Jini maintains that salaries were increased by 25% and that they did not obstruct industrial accident applications.

Hey Jini, who has become the center of controversy following revelations regarding the working environment at Kidsworks, is facing a new phase of scrutiny. As a former employee alleged long working hours, wage issues, and unfair responses during the industrial accident application process, a current labor attorney has provided an opinion that legal remedy is effectively difficult to obtain. The core of the controversy appears to be shifting from the issue of holding the company legally responsible to a social evaluation of the company's morality and labor ethics.

On the YTN Radio program 'Wise Radio Life' broadcast on the 29th, Kim Hyo-shin, a labor attorney from Sonamu Labor Law Office, appeared to analyze the allegations of labor exploitation at Kidsworks. The controversy is escalating following an online exposé by "A," a former employee of the company operated by Hey Jini, regarding the unfair working environment experienced during past employment.

A claimed that while working at Kidsworks, they worked up to 16 hours a day without overtime pay despite receiving an annual salary of 20 million won. A further explained that they could not properly rest on weekends or holidays and suffered from panic disorder due to excessive workloads, which led to an recognition of an industrial accident. This has expanded the issue beyond simple disputes over workload intensity to matters concerning workers' right to health and employer responsibility.

In particular, A claimed that the company's attitude changed during the process of applying for an industrial accident due to deteriorating health. While the company initially appeared to support the application, A alleged that they subsequently submitted a written opinion denying the causal relationship between the work and the illness. The company's response regarding the recognition of the industrial accident has emerged as another point of contention.

Kidsworks clarified its position regarding the wage allegations, stating that salaries were paid according to a set system, that the annual salary was increased by 25% during employment, and that separate bonuses were provided. The company also denied the claim that it obstructed the industrial accident application. In response, A acknowledged receiving bonuses but countered that the actual annual salary was only increased once, from 20 million won to 21 million won. A explained that contrary to the 25% increase claimed by the company, the actual increase rate was only 5%.

As the claims of both sides clash directly, Kim highlighted the realistic limitations regarding the possibility of legal action. She explained that in the event of unpaid wages, rights must in principle be asserted within three years, and since a significant amount of time has passed, it may be difficult to recover unpaid wages even if reported now. Regarding criminal punishment, she expressed the opinion that there are constraints in holding them legally responsible, noting that the statute of limitations may have already expired.

Kim also examined the allegations raised in this controversy, such as working hours, the comprehensive wage system, annual salary calculation, and the obstruction of industrial accident applications. However, she drew a line, stating that it is difficult to make a definitive judgment on individual issues as sufficient concrete evidence, such as materials proving actual working hours, has not been presented. She emphasized that objective data, such as employment contracts, payroll records, and work logs, are crucial to determining the facts of the allegations.

She specifically noted that the legal statutes of limitations appear to have all expired around the summer of 2020, predicting that it will not be easy for A to demand financial responsibility or receive legal remedy from the company at this time. However, the controversy remains a separate issue, as the difficulty of legal action does not mean the social evaluation of the working environment at that time is concluded.

Ultimately, this situation reveals the need to view the possibility of legal punishment and the labor ethics of a company as separate matters. The expiration of a legal statute of limitations does not automatically determine the truth of the raised allegations, nor does an exposé confirm the illegal acts of a company. This is why objective data to support the conflicting claims and specific explanations from the company are required.

Read the original (Korean)