Post office security guard complains about “forced telegram” complaint to Human Rights Commission

▲ Public Transport Union Democratic Post Office Headquarters

Suspicions have been raised that an attempt was made to forcibly telegraph security workers at the Anseong Post Office in Gyeonggi-do. The post office countered that this was not true.

On the morning of the 29th, the Democratic Post Office Headquarters of the Public Transport Union held a press conference in front of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea in Jung-gu, Seoul and said, “The fact that the Anseong Post Office conducted a forced telegram to a security guard who is an indirectly hired worker is a form of Gapjil. We ask the Human Rights Commission to make a decision as soon as possible so that it does not happen again,” he said.

According to the headquarters, Mr. Kim, who works as a security guard at the Anseong Post Office, asked an insurance solicitor not to use the customer parking space in September. The insurance solicitor protested and filed a complaint with the Post Office Facility Management Corporation. The headquarters claims that the post office tried to telegraph Kim on the side of an insurance solicitor with a good track record.

Kim filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. The petition said, “I want to continue working at Anseong Post Office, but I do not want to work with unfair treatment. I hope that the postmaster will be held accountable for his actions and that appropriate measures will be taken.” Kim also filed a complaint with a similar purpose in the National Newspaper. An official from the headquarters said, “I requested an apology from the postmaster, but it was not accepted.”

The Anseong Post Office claimed that there was no compulsory telegram, except that it sent a ‘request for rotational work review’ to the Post Office Facility Management Group, which is entrusted with post office security and facility management. A post office official said, “Even though reconciliation was attempted, the conflict continued between the security guard and the insurance solicitor, so we decided that it would be appropriate to have them work separately. .

Reference-www.labortoday.co.kr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.