November 17, 2010
Japan Airlines is trying to fire an additional 250 crewmembers, including those who are currently on administrative leave, in the name of corporate restructuring.
When corporations conduct dismissals for downsizing, they should meet four requirements established by the Supreme Court precedents: prove the necessity for cutbacks, make every possible effort to avoid dismissals, provide a rational and objective reason when selecting who is to be fired, and go through appropriate dismissal procedures.
At JAL, 1,520 employees have voluntarily accepted early retirement, exceeding the initial goal of 1,500; the company has made 109.6 billion yen in operating profits in the first half year, 80 billion yen more than it planned as the year-end target; and JAL unions have proposed the introduction of temporary-leave and work-sharing schemes as adopted in some European countries but the management has refused to accept their proposal.
JAL is indeed violating the four requirements in its layoff process. It is not in a state incapable of surviving and has not taken every measure to avoid the dismissals.
The reason why JAL is going ahead with the payroll cuts is that it probably wants to exclude active union members and destroy uncooperative unions.
The government’s irresponsible handling of air administration caused JAL’s business failure in the first place. Forced to purchase more than 100 jumbo jets in accordance with the U.S. request, JAL has had to store some brand-new jumbo jets it could not use in the U.S. desert. The air carrier was also forced to run many unprofitable flight routes due to the government’s reckless construction of new airports.
JAL workers should not have to take responsibility for these policy failures. Based on the safety-first standpoint, JAL should stop its improper firing of crews.
- Akahata, November 17, 2010
When corporations conduct dismissals for downsizing, they should meet four requirements established by the Supreme Court precedents: prove the necessity for cutbacks, make every possible effort to avoid dismissals, provide a rational and objective reason when selecting who is to be fired, and go through appropriate dismissal procedures.
At JAL, 1,520 employees have voluntarily accepted early retirement, exceeding the initial goal of 1,500; the company has made 109.6 billion yen in operating profits in the first half year, 80 billion yen more than it planned as the year-end target; and JAL unions have proposed the introduction of temporary-leave and work-sharing schemes as adopted in some European countries but the management has refused to accept their proposal.
JAL is indeed violating the four requirements in its layoff process. It is not in a state incapable of surviving and has not taken every measure to avoid the dismissals.
The reason why JAL is going ahead with the payroll cuts is that it probably wants to exclude active union members and destroy uncooperative unions.
The government’s irresponsible handling of air administration caused JAL’s business failure in the first place. Forced to purchase more than 100 jumbo jets in accordance with the U.S. request, JAL has had to store some brand-new jumbo jets it could not use in the U.S. desert. The air carrier was also forced to run many unprofitable flight routes due to the government’s reckless construction of new airports.
JAL workers should not have to take responsibility for these policy failures. Based on the safety-first standpoint, JAL should stop its improper firing of crews.
- Akahata, November 17, 2010
