Hey Jini's former employee disputes pay raise, claiming 5%, not 25%

Hey Jini's former employee, identified as A, disputed the company's account of a 25% annual salary increase. A said the salary was 20 million won at hiring and rose once during employment to 21 million won, a 5% increase. A asked the company to explain how it calculated the 25% figure.

Hey Jini's representatives had said on the 27th that the salary was paid without problems under the pay system in place at hiring and, contrary to the account that had circulated, was subsequently increased by 25%. They also said a separate bonus was paid during A's leave.

Regarding working arrangements, A also countered that A had never worked from home during employment. A claimed that long overtime hours and late departures were frequent, and that the company covered taxi fares because of this repeated overtime.

Hey Jini's representatives said they discussed job responsibilities and working methods with the employee and allowed broad autonomy over scheduling and how tasks were carried out. Their position is that working hours could be adjusted or remote work chosen depending on circumstances, and that they repeatedly asked the employee to reduce working hours or rest through vacation or leave if work was burdensome to the employee's health.

On assistance with the occupational injury compensation claim, A acknowledged that the company had offered to be told if a labor consultant was needed. A said, however, that the claim was not filed through that consultant.

Hey Jini's representatives denied obstructing the occupational injury compensation claim. They said that, respecting the employee's wish to file a claim in late 2018, they introduced an outside certified labor consultant and helped the employee receive a direct consultation and guidance on filing procedures.

A said a claim for occupational injury compensation related to panic disorder and major depression was approved in January 2020 after a review lasting about one year. Regarding an additional decision notice from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service that A released, A explained that it was a separate document issued in connection with an already recognized occupational injury, rather than a document indicating the date of the initial recognition.