Despite CEO Min Hee-jin’s statement refuting former ADOR employee B’s accusation of covering up sexual harassment in the company, the controversy continued to escalate when B shared a detailed article disproving CEO Min’s claims.
On August 14th, B, a former employee of ADOR, expressed their frustration with CEO Min Hee-jin’s repeated false claims and defamatory statements. B stated that they had previously remained silent about the CEO’s lack of neutrality, but were disappointed that she did not address the abusive remarks made towards them or the deceitful actions. The CEO’s statement only tried to cover up the main issues by making excuses such as poor performance and salary reduction, which B had already expected. B then requested that the CEO clarify, correct, and apologize for the three key issues that were raised and also pointed out the false claim made about their performance.
Regarding the claim that the case was closed with no charges and the CEO was not biased
B stated that, during their time at ADOR, CEO Min Hee-jin was in charge of managing and resolving issues related to workplace and sexual harassment. They also noted that, according to the company’s policies, the CEO held the authority to make final decisions on disciplinary actions for ADOR employees.
B stated, “As the CEO, it is important to remain impartial and resolve conflicts in a lawful manner. This is a responsibility that comes with holding such a prestigious position.”B then requested an explanation of the actions taken to address Director A’s accusations and the perceived favoritism shown by not reprimanding the perpetrator, as the ultimate decision-maker.
Regarding the Claim of Retaliatory False Report
Upon clarification, B stated, “CEO Min, I urge you to cease the dissemination of false information and diverting focus from the primary concerns.”B also mentioned, “All seven incidents of workplace harassment and one instance of sexual harassment were reported with substantial evidence. Additionally, Director A acknowledged and apologized for his actions in the Kakaotalk conversation with the CEO.”B proceeded to reveal the complete report, asserting its accuracy.
Disclosure of Salary and 40% Salary Reduction
B stated that it is against the law to reveal an employee’s salary and to announce a 40% reduction without their consent. B also mentioned that they were not surprised by this behavior from CEO Min. However, B found it unacceptable that CEO Min casually discussed their salary, explained the reason for the reduction, and even disclosed the exact amount to the public.
She reiterated, “Throughout my career, I have consistently received excellent evaluations from all companies I have been employed at. In fact, three years ago, I was already earning a salary higher than what I received while working at ADOR, without any additional incentives. I have also been approached by other companies with job offers at the same salary level.” She emphasized, “It is important to follow proper disciplinary procedures and give prior notice before reducing an employee’s salary, as it is a violation of the law. Even in cases where a salary reduction is deemed necessary through a disciplinary process, there are legal limits that must be adhered to. A 40% decrease in my salary, almost half of my current earnings, essentially forces me to resign.”
Performance and Evaluation at the End of the Internship Period
In response to CEO Min’s comment about not being competent, B stated, “A total of five individuals were involved in the six-month probation evaluation. With the exception of Director A, who only worked with me for a month, all others provided positive evaluations and strong recommendations.”B went on to say, “CEO Min primarily worked remotely and rarely visited the office. As a direct staff member, I only had the opportunity to meet with her three or four times outside of meetings. Can a CEO who is hardly present in the office accurately and comprehensively evaluate an employee’s job performance?”
B inquired, “Would so many people show empathy and offer assistance if I were not performing well at work?”
Upon reflecting on the incident, B expressed, “Following the arrangement of a lunch with a crucial advertiser for ADOR, I was subjected to hours of scolding and constant use of abusive language. It is incredibly unjust that after seeking support and help from my colleagues in handling the advertising task that was unexpectedly assigned to me, I was met with a 40% salary decrease and ongoing harassment.”
Lastly, B emphasized that the main concern was CEO Min’s alleged cover-up of workplace harassment, manipulation of public opinion with false information, and defamation. B demanded an explanation from CEO Min Hee-jin and firmly stated, “No”, in response to Min’s question, “Do you support HYBE’s actions?”
The source of this information can be found at the following link: https://news.nate.com/view/20240815n00192?mid=n1008.
Leave a Reply