Employees in the defense industry are required to enter test sites and maintenance hangars under military control for the operation tests and maintenance of military equipment. Despite the strengthening of safety standards for defense industry employees since 2019, they remain in a blind spot for safety accidents. However, the safety management of military facilities is conducted in accordance with the National Defense Safety Management Directive, necessitating a reassessment for the safety of defense industry employees. In this study, an analysis was conducted on the National Defense Safety Management Directive to examine the legal basis for preventing safety accidents among defense industry employees and for ensuring the obligation of contractors to secure safety and health under the Serious Accident Punishment Act. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted to investigate and analyze the actual safety management status of defense industry employees. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the scope of the current military safety management instruction was limited to the Ministry of National Defense and institutional units, excluding defense industry workers, and it was confirmed that safety management of defense industry workers was not properly performed during test evaluation conducted within weapon system research institutions. In this study, the following implications and measures to strengthen safety standards were suggested. Firstly, the application scope of the Serious Accident Punishment Act should encompass employees in the defense industry. Secondly, a compensation system for accident victims needs to be implemented. Thirdly, substantive safety training for employees should be conducted, taking into account the risk factors at defense industry sites. These research findings are expected to contribute to enhancing the technological capabilities of the South Korean defense industry by preventing accidents at defense sites and actualizing compensation for victims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: