Risk assessment under Korea's Occupational Safety and Health Act is a procedure for finding the causes at a workplace that can injure people or harm their health, judging the size of the risk, and setting and carrying out measures to reduce it. At workplaces where people drive vehicles or operate mobile equipment such as construction machinery and forklifts, being under the influence of alcohol can affect work behavior and accident risk, so safety managers and employers sometimes consider whether to introduce breath alcohol testing in connection with risk assessment.
A common misunderstanding here is the reading that the duty to conduct risk assessment amounts to a blanket duty to test all workers for alcohol or to install specific equipment. A device that controls vehicle starting based on factors such as breath test results is called an interlock, or alcohol interlock, but it is hard to conclude from the general risk assessment provision in Article 36 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act alone that every workplace must introduce such devices or alcohol testing. You need to look separately at what the Act requires the assessment to contain and the management tools a workplace chooses.
What Article 36 requires is identifying risks and improvement measures
Article 36 requires employers to identify hazards and risk factors in buildings and structures, machinery, tools, and equipment, raw materials, workers' work behavior, or other work. It then requires them to determine whether the size of risks that could lead to death, injury, or illness is at an acceptable level, and to establish and implement improvement measures to prevent danger or health impairment.
So the starting point of the provision is not "did we buy breathalyzers?" but what creates risk in the work at that workplace. If there are tasks where impaired judgment can lead to accidents, such as driving, operating mobile equipment, or work at height, alcohol-related risk can be included in the review. However, nothing has been confirmed in Article 36 that uniformly specifies a testing method, who is tested, how often, or the installation of a particular product or interlock.
Alcohol-related risk and a duty to have testing equipment are not the same thing
A risk assessment can conclude that being under the influence of alcohol may increase the likelihood of accidents. Even so, that conclusion alone does not make buying or installing specific equipment a legal duty. Which of several improvement methods to choose, such as training, pre-work condition checks, work assignment criteria, management of driving duties, and reporting procedures, is a question to consider in light of the nature of the risk identified and the work environment.
In particular, an interlock is a device that controls vehicle starting, so its purpose and where it applies are not exactly the same as general breath alcohol testing. For work that does not involve driving, cases where people drive but start control does not fit the workflow, or where people under various employment types work together, the device's features alone cannot determine the management approach. It is more accurate to write down separately what the equipment can do and what risk reduction measures the law requires.
| Category | Risk assessment under Article 36 | Operating approach the workplace sets separately |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Hazards and risk factors arising from work and work behavior | The risks to reduce at the site and the operating conditions |
| What is reviewed | Judging the size of risks and establishing and implementing improvement measures | Whether to test, which tasks, how results are handled |
| How documents express it | Which risks to lower and how | How the chosen tool will be carried out and checked |
As the table shows, risk assessment is "preparing and implementing measures that reduce risk," and alcohol testing is one of the tools that may be considered as such a measure. If a proposal or internal report bundles the two into one sentence, such as "the law requires that specific equipment be installed," the line between the general duty and an internal choice can blur.
How assessment and action connect, in a hypothetical case
Suppose, for example, there is a workplace that uses both delivery vehicles and forklifts. If a pre-work meeting observes that driving duties and equipment movement are concentrated in the same time slot, and that a driver's impaired judgment could lead to collision or caught-in accidents, this can be documented as a risk that may arise from work behavior and equipment operation.
The next interpretation is not "installing breathalyzers has been legally confirmed," but that a review is needed of how to manage drivers' fitness for work, including whether they are under the influence. Possible actions include setting management criteria for driving duties, strengthening training or work assignment procedures, and, if needed, comparing the feasibility of testing procedures or start-control devices. Which of these to adopt is decided by linking how each tool actually reduces the risk with how feasible it is at the site.
Rather than setting the completion criterion only as "the equipment was installed," it is appropriate to check whether the chosen improvement measures were actually carried out and whether risks remain. For example, if a management procedure before driving duties was set, review together with the assessment results whether that procedure is carried out at the site, whether drivers and site supervisors know its content, and whether points needing improvement in relation to accident risk have come to light.
Worker participation and recording results are also part of the assessment
Article 36 requires that workers at the workplace take part in the risk assessment, and that the workers' representative take part if they request it. It also requires that matters related to the risk assessment be communicated to workers through safety and health training, briefings, postings, written or electronic means, and so on, and that the results be recorded and kept. If alcohol-related risk is included as an assessment item, site drivers must be able to describe the actual work sequence and risk situations so that the measures do not lean too heavily on equipment.
In the records, rather than writing only an abstract note such as "alcohol management needed," it is best to link which work showed which accident possibility and what improvement measures were set. Even if you decide to run testing, recording separately the legal risk assessment content, the operating procedure the workplace adopted, and the features the equipment supports makes it easier to recheck the basis for decisions at later changes and reviews.
Read purchasing wording by separating the provision from its scope
If an equipment proposal or purchasing review document contains the phrase "a duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act," you first need to check which provision is cited and what act that provision requires. If only Article 36 is presented, ask separately whether it refers to the duty to conduct risk assessment, or extends to a duty to introduce alcohol testing or a specific device. A basis for the former does not automatically become a basis for the latter.
In conclusion, risk assessment under Article 36 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is not a blanket duty to conduct alcohol testing. However, when alcohol-related risks are identified in a workplace's work, the employer can consider testing or the use of equipment as one option in the process of establishing and implementing improvement measures to lower that risk. When judging whether an actual duty exists, you also need to check separately whether there are other rules that apply to the industry or task beyond the general provision of Article 36.
※ This article is general information, not legal advice on any individual case. Please consult a lawyer or other professional about specific matters, and because laws can be amended, check the latest text at the Korea Law Information Center.
