Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report as well as the information it provided to the Conference Committee in June 1993 and the discussion which took place there. It also notes the comments made by the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) in a communication dated 19 December 1994.

1. Denial of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel. First of all, the Committee notes the conclusions of the ILO visit to Japan which took place in January 1994 concerning the question of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel.

The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that consultations have been continuing between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the All-Japan Prefectural Municipal Workers' Union (JICHIRO) in order to find an appropriate solution to the right to organize for fire-fighting personnel. Furthermore, upon the suggestion at a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the JTUC-RENGO in April 1994 that the participation of the Fire Defence Agency be strengthened in these consultations, several further consultations have been held since April 1994 with the participation of the Fire Defence Agency. While the Government indicates that it is not yet in a position to submit a report on the conclusion of these consultations, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Fire Defence Agency and the JICHIRO have agreed to continue more positive consultations and to make their utmost efforts in order to come to a conclusion, which will be acceptable to the Japanese people, as soon as possible. Once the consultation is concluded, the Government will submit additional information. The Committee further notes in this respect the comments made by JTUC-RENGO to the effect that JICHIRO has been continuing consultations in order to reach a settlement by the time of the 82nd Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1995.

The Committee therefore trusts that a solution satisfactory to all parties concerned will be reached in the very near future and that it will ensure the right to organize for fire-fighting personnel. It once again recalls, however, that the right to organize does not necessarily imply the right to strike and that fire-fighting services are considered to be an essential service in the strict sense of the term in which the right to strike may be prohibited.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on further developments in the situation and, in particular, on any measures taken or envisaged following the above-mentioned consultations.

2. Prohibition of the right to strike of public servants. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that the prohibition on strikes should be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In its latest report, the Government cites several recent judgements of the Supreme Court of Japan which state that the prohibition of strike by public employees is constitutional and further hold that Article 3 of this Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to strike by public employees. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 156-158 of its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining in which it indicates that restrictions on the right to strike of public servants should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

As regards penal sanctions, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that it has always properly applied the law, fully recognizing the Committee's previous observations. The Committee must, however, once again point out that penal sanctions should only be imposed where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and that they should be proportional to the offences committed; penalties of imprisonment should not be imposed in the case of peaceful strikes. The Government is requested to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to limit the restriction on the right to strike of public servants only to those exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services and to ensure that penal sanctions for strike are confined to the above-mentioned conditions.