CMNT_TITLE

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Japan (RATIFICATION: 1965)

Previous comments

The Committee notes the following observations concerning matters addressed in this comment, as well as the Government’s replies thereto: the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) and of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren), transmitted with the Government’s report; and the observations of the Firefighting Personnel and Ambulance Workers (ZENSHOKYO), received on 10 August 2023.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize of firefighting personnel. The Committee recalls its long-standing comments concerning the need to recognize the right to organize for firefighting personnel. For the past years, the Government has been referring to the operation of the Fire Defence Personnel Committee (FDPC) system, which was presented as an alternative. The role of the FDPC was to examine proposals on working conditions of the personnel and to submit its conclusions to the chief of the fire department. Surveys directed to fire defence headquarters are regularly conducted to gather information on the deliberations and results of the FDPC. In its latest report, the Government refers to specific surveys, conducted in 2018 and 2022, aimed at assessing the operation of the FDPC system and seeking improvement. The Government also reports that, from January 2022 up to March 2023, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) held the seventh to the tenth consultation with the workers’ representatives, where it discussed the Government’s opinion that fire defence personnel are considered as police in relation to the implementation of the Convention, as well as various topics such as the re-employment of fire defense personnel, harassment in the workplace, the employment and empowerment of female firefighters, the state of the ambulance services and working hours.

In this regard, the Committee notes the ZENSHOKYO indication that since 1977 it handles issues such as the improvement of the equipment and facilities for firefighting and ambulance personnel, as well as their working conditions without being able to negotiate and consult with management due to the denial of the right to organize. The sanitary crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic led to worsened working conditions for emergency personnel and in particular the ambulance services. Despite clear proposals gathered from the first-responder firefighters, ZENSHOKYO was unable to engage with management on urgent remedial measures in the absence of a system where labour and management could cooperate. Based on such experience and in anticipation of any future crises, ZENSHOKYO calls for the recognition of the right to organize for firefighting personnel. The Committee notes that the Government recalls the emergency measures taken in cooperation with concerned organizations to reduce the burden on firefighters and ambulance services during the sanitary crisis, as well as initiatives to increase the personnel and the budget. The Government also recalls that the use of the FDPC system, even during the sanitary crisis, enabled the review of about 5,000 opinions per year - of which 40 per cent are considered appropriate for implementation. Since the authorities were able to address the difficult situation of ambulance transport during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and taking into account the concerns raised by the Fire Chiefs’ Association of Japan, and other organizations, that the granting of the right to organize may disrupt the firefighting staff’s reporting line and organizational order, and thus hinder the activities during wide-scale disasters, the Government does not share the view of ZENSHOKYO that the right to organize of firefighters is indispensable to prepare for future crises. The Committee further notes that JTUC–RENGO reiterates that the reporting systems, consulting services or fairness committees set up by the Fire and Disaster Management Agency are not functioning, and amount to nothing more than makeshift measures and the Government’s denial of the right to organize hampers fire and emergency services by lowering morale among personnel, impedes firefighting and emergency services and ultimately endangers the lives and properties of citizens and residents. The Committee also notes that Nippon Keidanren shares the view expressed by the Government.

The Committee is bound to recall that the implementation policy for the FDPC remains distinct from the recognition of the right to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. It notes that views remain divergent on the meaningfulness of the consultations held under the FDPC system and notes with regret that no progress was made towards bringing positions closer together on the right to organize of firefighting personnel. The Committee once again expresses its firm expectation that continuing consultations will contribute to further progress towards ensuring the right of firefighting personnel to form and join an organization of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this regard.

Article 2. Right to organize of prison staff. The Committee recalls its long-standing comments concerning the need to recognize the right to organize of prison staff. The Committee notes that the Government recalls its position that prison officers are included in the police, that this view was accepted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its 12th and 54th Reports, and that granting the right to organize to the personnel of penal institutions would pose difficulty for the appropriate performance of their duties and the proper maintenance of discipline and order in the penal institutions. The Government reiterates that, in cases where any emergency occurs in a penal institution, it is required to bring the situation under control, by force if necessary; therefore, granting the right to organize to the personnel of penal institutions could pose a problem for the performance of their duties and maintenance of discipline and order. Since 2019, the Government decided to grant expanded opportunities for the personnel of penal institutions to express their opinions in the eight regional correctional headquarters across the country. In 2022, the sessions took place partly online with the participation of 222 general staff members (from 75 penal institutions). The participants exchanged opinions on improving the work environment, on the staff training and on the reduction of the workload. The Committee notes Nippon Keidanren’s observations supporting the Government’s view that prison officers should be considered part of the police.

The Committee notes that according to JTUC–RENGO: (i) the various measures described by the Government to provide opportunities for the personnel of penal institutions to express their opinions on their working conditions are irrelevant to union rights, including the right to organize. They merely constitute an exchange of views with individual employees and cannot be considered negotiation; and (ii) the measures described by the Government serve as substitutes for a meaningful discussion on granting the right to organize to the personnel of penal institutions.

While noting the information on the Government initiatives to give opportunities to the personnel of penal institutions to provide their opinions on various aspects, including on their working conditions, the Committee must reiterate that, in its view, these initiatives remain distinct from the recognition of the right to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that, despite reiterated calls from this Committee and the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereafter the Conference Committee), the Government has again failed to engage in consultation with the social partners to determine the categories of prison officers that may form and join an organization of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in previous reports, the Government referred to the following distinction among staff in penal institutions: (i) prison officers with a duty of total operations in penal institutions, including conducting security services with the use of physical force, who are allowed to use small arms and light weapons; (ii) penal institution staff other than prison officers who are engaged directly in the management of penal institutions or the treatment of inmates; and (iii) penal institution staff designated, by virtue of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to carry out duties of judicial police officials with regard to crimes which occur in penal institutions and who have the authority to arrest, search and seize. Therefore,the Committee once again urges the Government to engage without further delay in consultations with the social partners and other stakeholders concerned to determine the necessary measures to ensure that prison officers, other than those with the specific duties of the judicial police, may form and join an organization of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests, and to provide detailed information on the steps taken in this regard.

Article 3. Denial of basic labour rights to public service employees. The Committee recalls its long-standing comments on the need to ensure basic labour rights for public service employees, in particular that they enjoy the right to industrial action without risk of sanctions, with the only exception being public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes the general information provided once again by the Government on its overall approach, which remains to continue to hear opinions from employee organizations. The Government refers once again to the procedures of the National Personnel Authority (NPA) presented as a compensatory guarantee for public service employees whose basic labour rights are restricted. The Government indicates that the NPA held 180 official meetings with employees’ organizations in 2021 and 190 official meetings in 2022, making recommendations enabling working conditions of public service employees to be brought into line with the general conditions of society. The Government invokes the example of the use of the NPA recommendation system through fact-finding surveys nationwide for revision of the remuneration of public service employees, implemented since 1960. Therefore, the Government restates that these compensatory measures maintain appropriately the working conditions of public service employees. The Committee notes the Nippon Keidanren observations supporting the Government’s intention to continue to carefully review and consider measures for an autonomous labour-employer relations system, taking into account views from employees’ organizations.

The Committee notes, however, the observations from the JTUC–RENGO regretting that the Government’s position on the autonomous labour–employer relations system has not evolved and the Government’s failure to initiate consultation with the organizations concerned. Furthermore, JTUC–RENGO reiterates that the NPA recommendations are left to political decision, making it obvious that such a mechanism is defective as a compensatory measure. JTUC-RENGO regrets that on all occasions the Government merely and invariably repeats its statement made in 2013 in the House of Representatives that “an autonomous industrial relations system would have a wide range of issues and as citizens’ understanding has not been gained yet, it will be necessary to continue to consider this carefully.” JTUC–RENGO deplores the evident lack of intention on the part of the Government to reconsider the legal system regarding the basic labour rights of public service employees.

Noting with deep regret that the report fails to provide any sign of progress on the matter, the Committee is bound to urge the Government to engage without further delay in consultations with the social partners and other stakeholders concerned to determine the necessary measures to ensure that public service employees, who are not exercising authority in the name of the State, enjoy fully their basic labour rights, in particular the right to industrial action. Moreover, the Committee also urges the Government to resume consultations with the social partners concerned for the review of the current system with a view to ensuring effective, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties have confidence and can participate at all stages, and in which the awards, once made, will be fully and promptly implemented. The Committee expects the Government to provide information on meaningful steps taken in this regard.

Local public service employees. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, representative organizations in the local public sector had referred to the adverse impact of the entry into force of the revised Local Public Service Act in April 2020 on their right to organize on the following grounds: (i) non-regular local public service employees and their unions are not covered by the general labour law that provides for basic labour rights and their ability to appeal to the labour relations commission in case of alleged unfair labour practice; (ii) the new system, which aimed at limiting the use of part-time staff on permanent duties (through special service positions appointed by fiscal year just as regular service employees), has the effect of increasing the number of workers stripped of their basic labour rights; (iii) the conditional yearly employment system in place has created job anxiety and weakens union action; and (iv) these situations further call for the urgent restoration of basic labour rights to all public service employees.

The Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates that the legal amendments ensure proper appointment of special service personnel and temporary appointment employees and clarify the framework of appointment of regular service part-time staff. In the Government’s view, the amendments guarantee the status of these personnel and employees along with the introduction of some allowances due to them. The change in the conditions of basic labour rights is therefore the consequence of the guarantee of the terms of appointment of these persons, as originally set out. The Government also states that it will carefully examine what the basic labour right of local public service employees should be “in a manner consistent with the measures for the labour-employer relations system of national public service employees” as prescribed by the supplementary provision of the Civil Service Reform Act. The Committee notes Nippon Keidanren’s observations supporting the position of the Government for careful examination regarding the basic labour rights of local public service employees. The Committee further notes JTUC–RENGO’s indication that while the legal amendments are a step to ensure proper appointment of special service personnel and temporary appointment employees, the basic labour rights of local public service employees remain unaddressed and should be addressed in the overall framework of the restoration of basic labour rights to all civil servants.

The Committee is once again bound to observe that the legal amendments to the Local Public Service Act that entered into force in April 2020 for local public service employees had the effect of broadening the category of public sector workers whose rights under the Convention are not fully ensured. Therefore, the Committee is once again bound to urge the Government to expedite without further delay its consideration of the autonomous labour-employer relations system, in consultation with the social partners concerned so as to ensure that municipal unions are not deprived of their long-held trade union rights through the introduction of these amendments. It expects the Government to provide detailed information on meaningful steps in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3. Consultations on a time-bound action plan of measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system. The Committee notes with regret that the Government merely repeats that it is examining carefully how to respond to the conclusions and recommendations formulated by the Conference Committee in 2018, and reiterates that it is exchanging opinions with JTUC-RENGO in this regard. The Committee notes, however, that JTUC–RENGO denies that such exchange of opinions took place and deplores that, despite the five years that have lapsed since the Conference Committee called on the Government to develop a time-bound action plan together with the social partners in order to implement its recommendations, the Government has taken no steps towards its materialization. The Committee observes with concern that the Government has made no tangible progress in engaging with the social partners to draw-up the action plan requested by the Conference Committee since 2018. Therefore, the Committee is bound to urge the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay to define, in consultation with the social partners concerned, a time-bound plan of action to give effect to the recommendations of the Conference Committee. The Committee expects the Government to report specific steps in this respect.