December 19, 2009
The Supreme Court on December 18 overturned a lower court decision and ruled that a Panasonic-affiliated company is not responsible for directly hiring a former temporary worker, who publicly revealed the company’s illegal labor practice.
The ruling however recognized the company’s illegal use of temporary workers as “disguised independent contractors” in order to evade the Worker Dispatch Law, as claimed by the 35-year-old plaintiff, Yoshioka Tsutomu.
Yoshioka started working for the plasma display maker Matsushita Plasma Display Co. in 2004. After filing a complaint at the Osaka Labor Bureau for its illegal use of temporary workers, he was directly hired by the company, but his term of employment lasted only five months.
The court acknowledged that during the five months, the company isolated him from his colleagues and gave him meaningless jobs as “retaliation” for his revelation of its illegal labor practice, and ordered it to pay him compensation for the treatment.
The ruling was the first Supreme Court decision on the corporate practice of “disguised contract work.” Although it recognized the company’s illegal use of a temporary worker, it rejected ordering the employer to directly hire him. Public criticism is expected to mount against the court’s failure to fulfill its social responsibility to provide relief to workers who have been treated as disposable labor by major companies.
At the same time, the ruling has revealed the lack of legal protection of temporary workers, indicating the urgent need to revise the Worker Dispatch Law.
- Akahata, December 19, 2009
Yoshioka started working for the plasma display maker Matsushita Plasma Display Co. in 2004. After filing a complaint at the Osaka Labor Bureau for its illegal use of temporary workers, he was directly hired by the company, but his term of employment lasted only five months.
The court acknowledged that during the five months, the company isolated him from his colleagues and gave him meaningless jobs as “retaliation” for his revelation of its illegal labor practice, and ordered it to pay him compensation for the treatment.
The ruling was the first Supreme Court decision on the corporate practice of “disguised contract work.” Although it recognized the company’s illegal use of a temporary worker, it rejected ordering the employer to directly hire him. Public criticism is expected to mount against the court’s failure to fulfill its social responsibility to provide relief to workers who have been treated as disposable labor by major companies.
At the same time, the ruling has revealed the lack of legal protection of temporary workers, indicating the urgent need to revise the Worker Dispatch Law.
- Akahata, December 19, 2009
