Even if the store owner reports abusive language, the head office is 'lukewarm'... gangster at work

<Anchor>

A baker working at a franchise bakery reported to the police that he had been verbally abused by the store owner several times.

The damage was acknowledged by notifying the head office of the recorded contents, but it is said that he suffered again in the process of processing.

Let's take a look at what reporter Park Chan-beom covered first, and then go into more structural issues.

<Reporter>

That's what A, a woman in her 30s, a baker with 6 years of experience, heard while working last month.

[Shop owner: Look, where are you going to work?

XX.

The one who just woke up is what are we going to do now]

The person who uttered the abusive language is the owner of a franchise bakery in his 50s.

Mr. A says she started rants after she had a disagreement over bread production.

[Mr. A: If it's the boss's shop, can you say whatever you want?]

[Storekeeper: Oh, it's noisy, I hate to hear it.

I hate to hear that you are not cheap]

He did not hesitate to say that he would not allow me to work in other stores.

[Shop owner: Even when the owner is coming, you make an impression, and who wants to work with you?

Since I told all the stores nationwide, you will release all the rumors] It

is said that even though there is no name tag on the clothes, the store owner even pushed her in the face saying that he would check the name.

[Storekeeper: What is your name, look at your name, look at your name, let’s see your name.]

[Mr. A: Where are you looking now?

Where's your name here?]

Mr. A reported the damage to his company along with a file of the conversation that day.

However, the company showed a lukewarm response, and only after Mr. A told the police that he would sue the owner of the damage, he responded by reporting it to the head office.

Mr. A is an employee of a subsidiary of the bakery's headquarters, and the owner is a sole proprietor who has contracted with this subsidiary to make bread.

The abuser is neither an employer nor an employee, but the company is out of the obligation to take measures such as immediate investigation or separation under the Workplace Harassment Act.

After confirming the damage, the baker company took measures to stop supplying bakers to the store for 14 days.

Mr. A complains of anxiety as he is also handling the police report and investigation process alone.

[Mr. A/Damaged baker: (Stop supply of baking manpower) We will take 14-day action, and the driver should take care of the legal action or that part...

.]

Separation from the perpetrator also has loopholes.

As the store is owned by the store owner, the victim, the baker, has no choice but to move.

Although it is possible to prevent damage from recurring by terminating the franchise contract, the baker company said that it was impossible to cancel the contract as a result of legal review in this case, so a correction request and warning were sent to the franchisee.

(Video coverage: Park Hyun-chul, video editing: Choi Hye-young, CG: Jang Seong-beom, Eom So-min)

---

<Anchor>

Let's talk with reporter Park Chan-beom.

[Reporter Park Chan-beom: The civic group <Work and Health> conducted a survey on the workers of a franchise bakery in June.

When asked if they had ever heard such abusive language at the store, about 18% answered yes.

When asked who the perpetrator was, the most common store owners were 43%.

The store owner, who is a contractor, has the right to replace the baker assigned to his store up to three times a year.

In fact, since they have a superior position, bakers often tolerate damage even if they suffer.

In addition, it is said that there is no expectation by itself just by reporting to the company.

Let's listen to the story.]

[Jong-rin Lim / President of Chemical Fiber Union Paris Baguette: Franchise owners are not simply in such a contractual relationship, but in a way they are customers of the company. I see a lot of people having a hard time doing it.]

[Reporter Park Chan-beom: As in this case, apart from the fact that franchise bakers suffer harassment from franchisees, there is now a typical example of apartment security workers receiving abuse from residents. It's outside.

Some amendments to the Labor Standards Act have been proposed to resolve the blind spots in this problem.

Who is the target of this perpetrator?

Previously, it was a <user> or <worker>, but the main idea was to include <interested contractors and customers> within the workplace.

] Harassment by such a person in a special relationship such as such is actually occupational harassment, so it is correct to include it in the 'Workplace Harassment Act' of the Labor Standards Act.]

[Reporter Park Chan-beom: If this happens, even workers who work under a contract will be protected by the workplace harassment law widely. seems to be able to receive it.]