--------------American School in Japan -----------------ASIJ Teachers' Union---Protecting Our Rights

Laws of Japan -- March 2003
Home
Previous Home Page
Letter to Board November 29, 2004
Letter to Board (proposal) May 27, 2004
5th Arbitration --May 20, 2004
4th Arbitration -- April 20, 2004
3rd Arbitration--March 8, 2004
Q & A from March 8 Arbitration
Letter to the Board--January 2004
History of Situation to Board--January 2004
Comments from Former Administrators--posted Jan 2004
Unofficial Viewpoint of the Board--June 2003
Concerns to the Board June 2003
4th DANKO -- Feb 27, 2003
Jan 25 Reply to our questions of Dec 15 -- Updated February 2003
3rd DANKO - November 2002
2nd DANKO--September 2002
1st DANKO-- May 2002
Examples of Past Practice -- March 2003
Our Concerns --May 2002
History of the Situation -- Updated April 2005
Letter of Agreement--April 27, 2005
Letter to Board President, April 2, 2005
Retirement Policies at ASIJ
We Get Letters -- Updated February 2003
Letters written by Union Members -- September 2002
Age Discrimination -- May 2002
FSCC Final Statement on This Issue -- May 2002
Union letter to School -- April 2002
Letters to Faculty/Staff -- April 2002
Letter sent to the Board -- March 2002
Some ASIJ Teacher Statistics (Some 2002 hires not included) -- May 2002
ASIJ Policies with adoption and revision dates -- May 2002
Information About the Union -- May 2002
Laws of Japan -- March 2003
A fundamental basis of Japanese law regarding changes in Personnel Policies is that no changes can be made, and especially those detrimental to the employee, without agreement from the employees.
 
Stated by:
 
Mr. Saito, lawyer, Yotsuya
Mr. Yonekawa, lawyer, Shimbashi
Mr. Marui, lawyer, Kokubunji
Labor Assistance Board, Tachikawa
Mitaka City Office
Labor Administration Office, Mitaka
Shikyoren Labor Union 
 
 

How binding are work regulations for an employer? What restrictions apply to disadvantageous modifications of working conditions on the basis of the regulations?

The degree to which work regulations are binding

While work regulations are prepared individually by companies, the objective is to apply working conditions in a standard and uniform way to, in principle, all workers. There have been problems with respect to how both labor and management is bound by work regulations. The principle of Japan's Civil Code is "defacto custom" (Article 92 of the Civil Code). Explained simply, this refers to a situation whereby, in the course of repeatedly doing the same thing over a long period, there emerges a mutual sense of being bound that is similar to a pledge made through a tacit understanding, even though no mutual pledge has been made in particular. The following interpretation has taken shape based on decisions handed down over the years by courts in Japan. To wit, this thinking holds that, when a state whereby treatment in accordance with the work regulations continues ever since the time of starting to work for a company, that becomes a rule in the minds of both labor and management. Accordingly, provided that reasonable working conditions are stipulated therein, compliance with the work regulations is regarded as being equivalent to the content of a labor contract. This is called the "legal normative character" of work regulations.

Disadvantageous modification of the work regulations

When an employer adds a new provision to the work regulations that is disadvantageous to workers or modifies an existing provision of the work regulations in a way that is disadvantageous to them, the problem arises as to whether workers are rightfully bound by that new or modified provision. Japan's Supreme Court has taken the stance that modification of a working condition that has been enjoyed until the present time in a way that is disadvantageous to workers is, in principle, not allowed. However, as long as the content of that change is reasonable, workers are not able to be exempt from it because they do not agree. In other words, if the content of a modification is reasonable, then workers must comply with the change even if it is to their disadvantage.

Judging whether modifications of the work regulations are reasonable

The standard for determining whether the content of a modification of the work regulations is reasonable is to compare, in terms of content and degree, the necessity from a business standpoint of the change that the employer must make and the disadvantage borne by workers as a result of that change. As a general rule, if the necessity surpasses the disadvantage, then the content of a modification is accepted as reasonable. But in the reverse case, said modification is regarded as disadvantageous and deemed invalid. Specifically, modifications that result in an actual deterioration of key working conditions-regarding, for example, pay (such as reducing basic wages or bonuses) or an extension of working hours-are judged very severely. The situation now is that consideration is given to the interests of workers, and employer conduct that goes too far is subject to stringent checking.  

Organization of a Labor Union
 
     Foreign employees have the right to organize a labor union, bargain and act collectively, in order to keep and improve their working conditions.  The organization of a labor union and its activities are guaranteed as basic labor rights by the Constituion of Japan and the Labor Union Law stipulates these rights in detail.
 
Activities of a Labor Union
 
1) Collective bargaining
 
     Collective bargaining is a forum for employees and employers to negotiate working conditions from an equal standpoint.  A labor union shall have the right to bargain collectively with the company for which its members work, regardless of the number of members  (Article 6, LAbor Union Law)
 
     There is no system in Japan like exclusive negotiation representative system in the United States of America (where only a labor union that has a majority of employees is endowed with the right to bargain collectively).
 
     An employer shall not refuse to bargain collectively without proper reasons.  If so, it shall constitute an unfair labor practice (Article 7-(2), Labor Union Law).
 
Unfair Labor Practice
 
The law prohibits an employer from infringing on employees' right to a union.  This constitutes an unfair labor practice.  If an employer commits an unfair labor practice, an employee or the labor union is entitled to complain against such an unfair practice to the Labor Relations Commission.  The Labor Relations Commisssion make an investigation and hearing without delay, and if the Commission recognizes the labor practices in question to be unfair, it will issue an order to protect the employee.  The following practices shall be forbidden as "Unfair Labor Practices" (Article 7-2, Labor Union Law);
 
1)  to discharge or discriminate against an employee by reason of his/her being a member of a labor union, having tried to join or organize a labor union, or having performed proper acts of a labor union;
2)  to make it a condition of employment that the employee must not join or must withdraw from a labor union;
3)  to refuse a request for collective bargaining without proper reason;
4)  to control or interfere with the formation or management of a labor union by employees;
5)  to give financial support in defraying the labor union's operational expenditure;
6)  to treat in a disadvantageous manner an employee by reason of a complaint to the Labor Relations Commission.
 
 

What are an employer's obligations concerning work regulations? What force do such regulations have?

The obligation to prepare and submit work regulations

Work regulations are a type of regulations pertaining to working conditions and workplace rules set by an employer so that business can be conducted efficiently by a company. Some companies refer to such regulations by other names, such as "plant regulations" or "employee regulations." Regardless of what they are called, however, these regulations are subject to the Labor Standards Law. An employer whose workforce ordinarily consists of ten or more workers must prepare written work regulations pertaining to specific items and then submit the regulations to the head of the Labor Standards Inspection Office that has jurisdiction. There are eleven items to be covered: three mandatory items, which are called "absolutely required matters," and eight that are referred to as "conditionally required matters" (Article 89). The three mandatory items that must appear in all work regulations are (1) matters pertaining to work starting and finishing times, break times, breaks, vacations, and so forth; (2) matters pertaining to methods for determining and calculating wages (excluding bonuses and retirement allowances), payment methods, pay periods and payment times, and raises; and (3) matters pertaining to retirement (including dismissals and mandatory retirement systems). The remaining eight items encompass matters related to bonuses, retirement allowances, safety and hygiene, commendations, and punishments. These eight only need to be included if a company carries out such activities on a systematized basis.

 

The obligation to listen to workers' views and to keep workers informed

 

Because work regulations are extensive and easily become quite detailed in their stipulations, a general practice is to divide the items and create separate regulations, such as pay rules and retirement-allowance rules. The law stipulates that a company must listen to the views of the labor union or worker representatives (limited to a labor union organized by more than half of the workers or representatives of more than half of the workers) when it prepares or modifies its work regulations-just listening is acceptable, and obtaining their agreement is not required-and that a written record of the opinions expressed by the labor union or representatives must be attached when submitting the work regulations, including any separate rules if they exist (Article 90). An employer is subsequently obligated to make the work regulations known to the workforce through such methods as posting the regulations or keeping them at easily visible locations at each regular workplace, issuing them in writing, or making them available by computer (Article 106).

 The validity of work regulations

Work regulations are comparable to the Labor Standards Law of a workplace. The matters set forth in such regulations are minimum conditions, and at the very least an employer shall not engage in any practices that fall short of these working conditions. Consequently, any work requests that do not measure up to the level of the working conditions contained in the work regulations-such as suddenly asking that the stipulated one-hour break time henceforth be shortened to forty-five minutes because work has become very busy-are deemed invalid, and whatever has been designated as invalid shall be aligned with the standards set forth in the work regulations (Article 93).

 

--------------------------------------------------

As dismissal is very serious for employees, the court ruled that a valid reason must be given for dismissal when the company wishes to discharge employees against their will, and dismissals which constitute an abuse of authority are not allowed.

The following requirements shall be complied with even when dismissal is due to a reduction in personnel because of a business decline,

      1)  the reduction in personnel is necessary for the company's existence and maintenance,

2)      the company has made efforts to avoid dismissals by not hiring new employees or by encouraging early retirement,

3)  the basis of the reduction in personnel is rational and also equitable, and persons must be selected logically,

4)  the company has also made efforts to explain to the employees satisfaction the rationale of staff reductions and the necessity of dismissal.