February 15&16, 2012
Four IBM Japan workers have been fighting in the Tokyo High Court against a lower court rejection last December of their claim for damages arising from IBM Japan’s violation of fundamental human rights by forcing them to resign.
Past judgments stated that an excessive suggestion to resign infringed on workers’ decision-making ability and thus amounts to a violation of worker rights.
Akahata on February 15 and 16 carried an interview with All-Japan Metal and Information Machinery Workers’ Union (JMIU) secretary general Miki Ryoichi. He said, in the IBM Japan case, the Tokyo District Court in December 2011 turned down their claims in total disregard of past legal precedents.
Behind the lawsuit lies the massive restructuring scheme which IBM Japan carried out in 2008. A whistle-blower revealed that the company had a secret “RA program” for its restructuring scheme, though at first the company denied the existence of such a program.
The program set the goal of reducing 1,300 employees out of a total of 16,000 employees. To achieve this goal, those in managerial posts were held responsible for actually meeting this goal. This resulted in 3,000 employees being exposed to relentless pressure by their superiors to resign.
The four plaintiffs, who are members of the All-Japan Metal and Information Machinery Workers’ Union (JMIU), clearly said many times that they had no intent to resign. However, they were chastised in interviews with their superiors or through e-mails for “poor performance, inadequate contribution to the company”, or told that “no one at IBM can work until the full retirement age of 60.” Some superiors pounded plastic-bottled drinks on their desks and stamped their feet on the floor in anger.
The company targeted those suffering from depression and other emotional problems for forced resignation, causing many of their health conditions to worsen.
The four filed their lawsuit in order to never again allow the company to resort to such a restructuring program causing severe mental turmoil on workers, though the four managed to refuse to accept forced retirement.
The district court justified the need for the RA program in order for Japan IBM to promote its corporate culture eliminating alleged poor performers, making every employee endeavor to improve his/her performance. The ruling also justified the company’s goal of forcing workers to retire and making poorly-rated workers targets for resignation as rational measures.
The judgment is based on the thinking that there is nothing wrong with the company putting pressure on workers whom it regards as “poor performers” and “dismissible or redundant workers” to leave the company.
The ruling also acquits the employer from its responsibility of maintaining workers’ jobs.
Article 16 of the Labor Law strictly restricts employers from abusing the right to dismiss workers. This is because stability of jobs for workers is a social requirement, and employers are responsible to maintain employment.
The ruling ignores the reality of the uneven relation between capital and labor, in which capitalists and employers have an overwhelming amount of power over employees.
It appears that the judge think that employers may use “tough tactics,” because workers can refuse to resign, if they don’t want to.
The reality is that employers have absolute power over workers, and loss of jobs means to workers an end to earning their daily bread.
Workers may suffer emotional damage when they are told by the employer that they have poor work performance, provide inadequate contribution to the company, and that they should resign.
Modern labor laws are based on the felt need that workers should be protected, given the power imbalance between employers and employees. Judges must recognize this basic principle.
The Supreme Court rules the following treatment as illegal: semi-compulsory and repetitive pressure to resign; discriminatory pressure against women workers to resign; and intentional use of derogatory language and threats of punishment. The top court views such acts as excessive, bringing about a disadvantage to those who refuse to resign.
At the administrative level, the Labor Standards Bureau cited repetitive and continuous interviews, along with protracted pressure to retire beyond necessity, and causing mental anguish that hinders the right of free choice as problematic.
The practice of companies forcing workers to resign is spreading in Japan at workplaces not represented by trade unions.
Recently, urging workers to resign or simply dismissing them by using low performance ratings has increased.
Behind this increase lies the strong demand by the Japanese business circles and the United States for the freedom to dismiss workers. They are calling for deregulation of labor laws in order to freely dismiss workers.
The Tokyo High Court in the IBM Japan case should overturn the district court ruling and promote the defense of jobs.
Past judgments stated that an excessive suggestion to resign infringed on workers’ decision-making ability and thus amounts to a violation of worker rights.
Akahata on February 15 and 16 carried an interview with All-Japan Metal and Information Machinery Workers’ Union (JMIU) secretary general Miki Ryoichi. He said, in the IBM Japan case, the Tokyo District Court in December 2011 turned down their claims in total disregard of past legal precedents.
Behind the lawsuit lies the massive restructuring scheme which IBM Japan carried out in 2008. A whistle-blower revealed that the company had a secret “RA program” for its restructuring scheme, though at first the company denied the existence of such a program.
The program set the goal of reducing 1,300 employees out of a total of 16,000 employees. To achieve this goal, those in managerial posts were held responsible for actually meeting this goal. This resulted in 3,000 employees being exposed to relentless pressure by their superiors to resign.
The four plaintiffs, who are members of the All-Japan Metal and Information Machinery Workers’ Union (JMIU), clearly said many times that they had no intent to resign. However, they were chastised in interviews with their superiors or through e-mails for “poor performance, inadequate contribution to the company”, or told that “no one at IBM can work until the full retirement age of 60.” Some superiors pounded plastic-bottled drinks on their desks and stamped their feet on the floor in anger.
The company targeted those suffering from depression and other emotional problems for forced resignation, causing many of their health conditions to worsen.
The four filed their lawsuit in order to never again allow the company to resort to such a restructuring program causing severe mental turmoil on workers, though the four managed to refuse to accept forced retirement.
The district court justified the need for the RA program in order for Japan IBM to promote its corporate culture eliminating alleged poor performers, making every employee endeavor to improve his/her performance. The ruling also justified the company’s goal of forcing workers to retire and making poorly-rated workers targets for resignation as rational measures.
The judgment is based on the thinking that there is nothing wrong with the company putting pressure on workers whom it regards as “poor performers” and “dismissible or redundant workers” to leave the company.
The ruling also acquits the employer from its responsibility of maintaining workers’ jobs.
Article 16 of the Labor Law strictly restricts employers from abusing the right to dismiss workers. This is because stability of jobs for workers is a social requirement, and employers are responsible to maintain employment.
The ruling ignores the reality of the uneven relation between capital and labor, in which capitalists and employers have an overwhelming amount of power over employees.
It appears that the judge think that employers may use “tough tactics,” because workers can refuse to resign, if they don’t want to.
The reality is that employers have absolute power over workers, and loss of jobs means to workers an end to earning their daily bread.
Workers may suffer emotional damage when they are told by the employer that they have poor work performance, provide inadequate contribution to the company, and that they should resign.
Modern labor laws are based on the felt need that workers should be protected, given the power imbalance between employers and employees. Judges must recognize this basic principle.
The Supreme Court rules the following treatment as illegal: semi-compulsory and repetitive pressure to resign; discriminatory pressure against women workers to resign; and intentional use of derogatory language and threats of punishment. The top court views such acts as excessive, bringing about a disadvantage to those who refuse to resign.
At the administrative level, the Labor Standards Bureau cited repetitive and continuous interviews, along with protracted pressure to retire beyond necessity, and causing mental anguish that hinders the right of free choice as problematic.
The practice of companies forcing workers to resign is spreading in Japan at workplaces not represented by trade unions.
Recently, urging workers to resign or simply dismissing them by using low performance ratings has increased.
Behind this increase lies the strong demand by the Japanese business circles and the United States for the freedom to dismiss workers. They are calling for deregulation of labor laws in order to freely dismiss workers.
The Tokyo High Court in the IBM Japan case should overturn the district court ruling and promote the defense of jobs.
