Texts of pending comments

The Committee notes the following observations concerning matters addressed in this comment, as well as the Government’s replies to them: the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO), transmitted with the Government’s report; of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN), received on 31 August 2021; and of the Rentai Union Suginami, the Rentai Workers’ Union, Itabashi-ku Section, the Apaken Kobe (Casual/Temporary/Part-time Non-regular Workers’ Union) and the Union Rakuda (Kyoto Municipality Related Workers’ Independent Union), received on 1 September 2021. The Committee further notes the observations from Education International (EI), received on 9 September 2021, and the reply of the Government thereto.

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 had 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 by the personnel and to submit its conclusions to the chief of the fire department. The Government further indicated that surveys, directed to fire defence headquarters, were regularly conducted to gather information on the deliberations and results of the FDPC. The Government also mentioned a specific survey, conducted in January 2018, aiming at assessing the operation of the FDPC system and eventually seeking improvement. The results of the survey were discussed in the Fire and Disaster Management Agency. While the outcome of this survey was that the FDPC system is operated properly, the workers’ representatives in the Fire and Disaster Management Agency called for improvement in the operation of the FDPC, including procedural transparency, and a more conducive environment for personnel to provide their opinions to the FDPC. In its previous report, the Government indicated that a new implementation policy of the FDPC, developed with the social partners, came into force in April 2019. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations from ZENROREN that the Japan Federation of Prefectural and Municipal Workers’ Union (JICHIROREN), joined by the Firefighters’ Network (FFN), had requested the Ministry for Internal Affairs and Communications and the Fire and Disaster Management Agency to come up with concrete measures to ensure that firefighters’ opinions regarding working conditions and workplace safety are heard in the operation of the FDPC. JICHIROREN and FFN conducted a survey among firefighters in June 2021; the result indicated that the FDPC system is still considered to give discretionary power to the head of the fire department. ZENROREN regretted that, despite such result, the Government’s response was merely to indicate that the FDPC system runs appropriately.

Furthermore, the Government indicates in its latest report that, since January 2019, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications held six consultations 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. In the Government’s view, the four consultations held in April, July and December 2019 enabled a substantive exchange on its opinion and on the Firefighting Staff Committee system. The fifth and sixth consultations, held in August 2020 and January 2021 respectively, enabled discussion of the situation of modern fire administration and the issue of harassment. The Government indicates that the employees voiced their appreciation for the regularity of the consultations and were willing to continue to hold regular consultations. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that JTUC–RENGO deplores the Government’s continued failure to respond to the Committee’s longstanding recommendation to grant the right to organise to firefighting personnel. JTUC–RENGO states that the establishment of reporting systems and consulting services brought up by the Fire and Disaster Management Agency 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 the personnel.

The Committee wishes to recall its prior emphasis 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 the divergent views on the meaningfulness of the consultations held since January 2019, and understands that no progress was made towards bringing positions closer together on the right to organise of firefighting personnel. The Committee is bound to express again 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 any 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 reiterates 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 also reiterates its view that, in cases where any emergency occurs in a penal institution, it is required to promptly and properly bring the situation under control, by force if necessary; thus granting the right to organize to the personnel of penal institutions could pose a problem for the appropriate performance of their duties and the proper maintenance of discipline and order. The Government recalls that it 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 2019 and 2021, with the participation of 228 general staff members (from 77 penal institutions) in 2019, and 233 general staff members (from 78 penal institutions) in 2021. The participants exchanged opinions on improving the work environment, on the nature of staff recreation as a way to contribute to a more open workplace and on the promotion of a better work-life balance for staff.

On the other hand, the Committee notes the observations from JTUC–RENGO regretting that the Government did not follow up on the Committee’s previous comments to consider the different categories of prison officers in determining, in consultation with the social partners, whether they are part of the police. JTUC–RENGO is of the view that: (i) the different measures described by the Government to provide opportunities to 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 as negotiation; (ii) these measures described by the Government serve as substitutes for a meaningful discussion on granting the right to organize to the personnel of penal institutions; and (iii) it is unlikely the Government can report any concrete example of measures taken that have improved the work environment based on the exchange of opinions described above.

The Committee considers it useful to recall 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. The Committee observes in this regard that the Government has not engaged, despite reiterated calls from this Committee and the Conference Committee, in any consultation with the social partners to consider the different categories of prison officers. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to recall that, in its view, the Government initiatives to give opportunities to the personnel of penal institutions to provide their opinions on various aspects, including on their working conditions, remain distinct from the recognition of the right to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee is bound to urge once again the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners and other concerned stakeholders, 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. 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 by the Government on its overall approach, which remains to continue to hear opinions from employee organizations. The Committee further notes the information on the reduction of the number of national public service employees, as a result of the creation of Incorporated Administrative Agencies and the privatization of public departments or divisions. According to the Government, the number of employees in Governmental Administrative Agencies has diminished from 807,000 in March 2003 to 302,000 in March 2021. The Government thus considers that presently the restrictions on the basic labour rights for national public service employees, whose number is decreasing, is considerably limited.

The Committee recalls that the Government has been referring over the years to the procedures of the National Personnel Authority (NPA) as a compensatory guarantee for public service employees whose basic labour rights are restricted. Previously, the Committee had noted the persistent divergent views on the adequate nature of the NPA as a compensatory measure, and had requested the Government to consider, in consultation with the social partners, the most appropriate mechanism that would ensure impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration. In its report, the Government indicates that the NPA held 185 official meetings with employees’ organizations in 2020, making recommendations enabling working conditions of public service employees to be brought in line with the general conditions of society. The Government invokes the example of the use of the NPA recommendation system for revision of the remuneration of public service employees, implemented since 1960. Thus, the Government restates that these compensatory measures maintain appropriately the working conditions of public service employees.

The Committee notes, on the other hand, 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 take action as requested by the ILO supervisory bodies. JTUC–RENGO, recalling the obligation of the Government under Section 12 of the Basic Act on the National Civil Service Reform (2008), regrets that the Government gives the same response it has been repeating for many years, that “there are wide-ranging issues regarding autonomous labour–employer relations systems, so while exchanging views with employees organizations, it is necessary to continue to consider this carefully”. Furthermore, JTUC–RENGO reiterates that the NPA recommendations are left to political decision, making it obvious that such mechanism is defective as a compensatory measure. JTUC–RENGO denounces the statement from the Government that the privatization of national administrative agencies had left fewer public service employees without their basic labour rights as an attempt to seek acceptance of these restrictions. The Committee notes that JTUC–RENGO deplores the evident lack of intention on the part of the Government to reconsider the legal system with regard to the basic labour rights of public service employees, and once again requests that the ILO supervisory bodies call into question the Government’s attitude and investigate these matters.

The Committee, noting that the report fails to provide any additional information on the matter, is therefore bound to urge once again that the Government indicate tangible measures taken or envisaged 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. In view of persistent divergent views, 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. It requests the Government to provide information on steps taken in this regard. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the functioning of the NPA recommendation system.

Local public service employees. The Committee had previously noted the observations of Rentai Union Suginami, Rentai Workers’ Union, Union rakuda and Apaken Kobe referring to the adverse impact of the entry into force of the revised Local Public Service Act in April 2020 on their right to organize, and stating that: (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 the latest observations provided by these trade unions, as well as by JTUC–RENGO and ZENROREN, deploring that the situation described remains unaddressed. Additionally, these observations allege that the increase in consultation on harassment at the workplace and non-renewal of employment, is part of a new framework making it difficult for non-regular employees to join municipal unions, which in turn makes it more urgent to ensure basic labour rights to local public service employees.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the legal amendments ensure proper appointment of special service personnel and temporary appointment employees, and that the change of basic labour rights conditions is a direct consequence. The Government asserts that, based on the examination of the autonomous labour-employer relations system of national public service employees, it will carry out careful examination of measures for local public service employees, listening to opinions from related organizations. The Committee recalls its view that the legal amendments that entered into force in April 2020 for local public service employees have the effect of broadening the category of public sector workers whose rights under the Convention are not fully ensured. The Committee therefore urges the Government to expedite its consideration of the autonomous labour-employer relations system so as to ensure that municipal unions are not deprived of their long-held trade union rights through the introduction of these amendments. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3. Consultations on a time-bound action plan of measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that it was examining carefully how to respond to the conclusions and recommendations formulated by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (Conference Committee) in 2018 and the various concerns regarding measures for the autonomous labour-employer relations system, while continuing to hear opinions from the social partners. The Committee observes with regret that no tangible progress seems to have been made in this respect. In its report, the Government merely indicates that it exchanged opinions with JTUC–RENGO and will provide information on initiatives taken in this regard in good faith. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that JTUC–RENGO denies such exchange of opinions took place and deplores that, despite the time that elapsed 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 step towards its materialization. The Committee also notes ZENROREN’s view that, based on how consultations were held with its affiliated organizations on the pending matters, it is clear that the Government has no willingness to draw-up the action plan requested by the ILO supervisory bodies. Recalling the Conference Committee conclusions, including as to the lack of meaningful progress in taking necessary measures regarding the autonomous labour-employer relations system, the Committee once again strongly encourages the Government to take meaningful steps to elaborate, in consultation with the social partners concerned, a time-bound plan of action to implement the recommendations made above and to report on any progress made in this respect.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

The Committee notes the following observations concerning matters addressed in this comment, as well as the Government’s replies to these: the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO), transmitted with the Government’s report; the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN), received on 31 August 2021; and the observations of the Rentai Union Suginami, the Rentai Workers’ Union, Itabashi-ku Section, the Apaken Kobe (Casual/Temporary/Part-time Non-regular Workers’ Union) and the Union Rakuda (Kyoto Municipality Related Workers’ Independent Union), received on 1 September 2021. The Committee further notes the observations from Education International (EI), received on 9 September 2021, and the reply of the Government to those.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. Collective bargaining rights of public service employees not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee recalls that for many years its comments relate to the need to ensure the promotion of collective bargaining for public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the steps taken to engage in consultation with the social partners, as required by the Civil Service Reform Law, so as to ensure collective bargaining rights for public service employees not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication once again that basic labour rights of public service employees are, to some degree, restricted, due to the distinctive status and the public nature of the functions. It recalls that public service employees benefit from the National Personnel Authority (NPA) recommendation system. It further asserts that exchanges are held annually, at various levels, with employees’ organizations on various topics, including the measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system. Observing that there are still various concerns and opinions concerning these measures, in addition to the changing environment in labour relations, the Government intends to continue to consult with the trade unions on these issues. The Committee notes, on the other hand, the observations of the JTUC–RENGO’s, ZENROREN, Rentai Union Suginami, Rentai Workers’ Union, Itabashi-ku Section, Apaken Kobe (Casual/Temporary/Part-time Non-regular Workers’ Union) and the Union Rakuda (Kyoto Municipality Related Workers’ Independent Union) deploring, in their respective communications, that the Government has failed to initiate any meaningful consultation on the autonomous labour–employer relations system despite their demands during the past years and alleging that this illustrates the lack of intention on the part of the Government to reconsider the legal system with regard to the basic labour rights of public service employees.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the NPA remains fully functional as a compensatory measure for the restrictions on basic labour rights of public service employees. The Government reports that the NPA held 208 meetings in 2019 and 185 meetings in 2020 to hear opinions and requests from trade unions. Additionally, the bills on remuneration and other working conditions of public employees prepared by the Government for the deliberation in the Diet are drafted according to the NPA recommendation system. In its view, these compensatory measures maintain appropriately the working conditions of national public service employees. The Committee notes, on the other hand, the opinion of the JTUC–RENGO that recommendations of the NPA are subordinated to the political decision of the Government. In the case of the recommendation on remuneration, the Committee notes that the JTUC–RENGO regretted that the wage revision processes had been conducted in a unilateral way by the Government, illustrating the fact that the NPA recommendation system is defective as a compensatory measure. The Committee recalls that, under Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State must be able to collectively negotiate their working and employment conditions, and that mere consultation mechanisms are not sufficient in this respect. The Committee, noting that the report fails to provide any additional information on the matter, firmly expects that the Government will make every effort to expedite its consultation with the social partners concerned and that it will adopt measures for the establishment of the autonomous labour–employer relations system that will ensure, in the near future, collective bargaining rights for all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the functioning of the NPA recommendation system as a compensatory measure to the denial of collective bargaining rights to public service employees.

Collective bargaining rights of national forestry project staff. The Committee, recalling that national forestry project staff are not among the category of workers that may be excluded from the scope of the Convention, previously requested the Government to indicate the steps taken to ensure that this category of workers is afforded the full guarantees of the Convention, including the right to bargain collectively. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it conducts an annual exchange of opinions with employee organizations regarding working conditions in the national forestry business. Those that the Government considers may be adopted are promptly implemented, such as the reappointment to Government posts for retired staff. The Committee notes the observations of the JTUC-RENGO recalling that the reappointment system is implemented by virtue of pre-existing laws, hence it was not established through labour–employer discussions within the national forestry project and that, as a consequence, the recognition of the right to collective bargaining of national forestry project staff remains unaddressed. The Committee, noting that the report fails to provide any meaningful information on the matter, reiterates its firm hope that the Government will provide in its next report information on tangible consultations held and the measures taken to ensure that national forestry project staff is afforded the full guarantees of the Convention, including the right to bargain collectively.

Full guarantee of the Convention for local public service employees. The Committee notes the observations of Rentai Union Suginami, Rentai Workers’ Union, Union Rakuda and Apaken Kobe referring to the adverse impact of the entry into force of the revised Local Public Service Act in April 2020 on their right to organize, and stating that: (i) the new system, which aimed at limiting the use of part-time staff on permanent duties, has the effect of increasing the number of workers stripped of their basic labour rights; and (ii) the new conditional yearly employment system in place has created job anxiety and weakens union action. Additionally, the trade unions allege that this new employment system increases risks of anti-union harassment at the workplace, including threats of non-renewal of employment, which makes it more urgent to ensure basic labour rights to local public service employees. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the change in the conditions relating to basic labour rights for some of these employees is a direct consequence of the legal amendments ensuring proper appointment of special service personnel and temporary appointment employees. The Government asserts that, based on the examination of the autonomous labour–employer relations system pertaining to national public service employees, it will carry out a careful examination of measures for the local public service employees, taking account of opinions from related organizations. The Committee recalls that the Convention covers all workers and employers, and their respective organizations, in both the private and public sectors, regardless of whether the service is essential. The only exceptions authorized concern the armed forces and the police, as well as public servants engaged in the administration of the State. It also recalls that the rights and safeguards set out in the Convention apply to all workers irrespective of the type of employment contract, regardless of whether or not their employment relationship is based on a written contract, or on a contract for an indefinite term (see 2021 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 168). The Committee observes that the legal amendments that entered into force in April 2020 for local public service employees have the effect of broadening the category of public sector workers whose rights under the Convention are not fully ensured. The Committee therefore urges the Government to expedite its consideration of the autonomous labour–employer relations system so as to guarantee that the rights under the Convention cover local public service employees without distinction and that the right to collective bargaining of municipal unions is not impaired through the introduction of these amendments. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO), which were received together with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN), received on 31 August 2021. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 5(1) of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government on the tripartite meetings which took place between June 2018 and May 2021 in the tripartite ILO Panel on the matters covered by the Convention. It notes that tripartite consultations were held regarding the preparation of reports on the application of ratified Conventions for 2018 and 2019. With respect to consultations on unratified Conventions, the Government reports that tripartite discussions were held in 2018, 2019 and 2020 to consider the possibility of ratifying the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). The Committee notes with interest the information provided by JTUC–RENGO in its observations, indicating that legislation for the ratification of Convention No. 105, a fundamental Convention, was adopted on 9 June 2021. JTUC–RENGO further observes that the Government should continue to make vigorous efforts, including continuing to hold tripartite discussions within the tripartite ILO Panel with the aim of ratifying Convention No. 111. JTUC–RENGO also indicates that a new Fifth Basic Plan for Gender Equality was adopted on 25 December 2020, to replace the Fourth Basic Plan, which had expired. JTUC–RENGO informs that, in addition to Convention No. 111, the Part-Time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175), the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183) and Convention No. 189. The Basic Plan expressly refers to the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) and provides that specific measures will be implemented. The Basic Plan also stipulates that sustained efforts will be made to pursue the ratification of other Conventions that are closely related to gender equality, although the structures for implementation of specific measures, including participation by workers' and employers' organizations, remain unclear. In the context of the Committee’s prior comments regarding the improvement of tripartite consultations, ZENROREN observes that the transparency of tripartite consultation procedures is not ensured, as it was recently announced that the proceedings and the minutes of the ILO Panel would not be published and only a summary would be made public. ZENROREN adds that the present system of consultation, which allows only particular workers’ and employers’ organizations, does not meet the requirements of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, according to JTUC–RENGO, it is difficult to state that the current operational method of the ILO Panel is in conformity with the direction pursued by the Basic Plan, as no more than two unratified Conventions may be proposed by the social partners for discussion. JTUC–RENGO considers that the Government should consider establishing other forums for tripartite discussion regarding ILO Conventions relating to gender equality and other issues. The Committee requests the Government to continue to report on the measures taken to improve tripartite consultations on international labour standards as required under the Convention and to provide detailed information on the content and outcome of the consultations on all of the matters listed in Article 5(1) of the Convention, including consultations held to re-examine the prospects of ratification of unratified ILO Conventions, in particular Conventions Nos 111, 175, 183, 189 and 190 (Article 5(1)(c)). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any developments relating to the possible ratification of Convention No. 105.

In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee recalls the comprehensive guidance provided by international labour standards. It encourages member States to engage in tripartite consultation and social dialogue more broadly as a solid foundation for developing and implementing effective responses to the profound socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on measures taken in this respect, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation No. 152, including with regard to steps taken to build the capacity of the tripartite constituents and strengthen mechanisms and procedures, as well as challenges and good practices identified.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report. It further notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN) received on 29 August 2019.

Article 1 of the Convention. Gender pay gap. In reply to the Committee’s request for statistical information on the gender wage gap in both the public and private sectors, including statistics covering non-wage workers, the Government indicates in its report that in 2017 women’s average earnings were 74.7 per cent of those of men (a wage gap of 25.3 per cent), compared with 73.6 per cent in 2015 (a wage gap of 26.4 per cent). The disparity of scheduled cash earnings for men and women workers (per hour) varies by industry: for example, women’s average earnings in finance and insurance were 62.7 per cent of those of men (a gap of 37.3 per cent), 81.7 per cent in transport and postal services (a gap of 18.3 per cent) and 88.7 per cent for high school teachers (a gap of 11.3 per cent). Further, the proportion of women senior executives in private enterprises was 8.5 per cent in 2015 and 9.9 per cent in 2018. The Government adds that there are no statistics on wage disparities between men and women in the public sector. The Committee observes that, although the gender pay gap is steadily decreasing, it still remains significant and that the share of women in leadership positions has remained very low despite the rising education level of women, the implementation of gender equality laws and the increasing participation of women in the labour market. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), women only held 13 per cent of managerial positions in Japan in 2019 and accounted for only 4.9 per cent of senior management positions in the central government in 2018, and 10.9 per cent in the private sector in 2017. Moreover, women occupied only 5.3 per cent of the seats on the boards of listed companies in 2017. The Committee asks the Government to provide: (i) information on the measures taken to promote women’s access to a wider range of jobs with career prospects and higher pay by addressing the underlying causes of the existing vertical and horizontal occupational gender segregation (such as stereotypes regarding women’s professional aspirations, preferences and capabilities, their role in the family, their concentration in low-paid sectors and part-time work, or a reward system based on uninterrupted tenure); and (ii) updated statistical information on the gender pay gap disaggregated by economic activity and occupation, and the gender distribution by job category in the public sector.

Articles 1 and 2. Indirect discrimination based on sex. Legislation. Following the 2006 amendments to the Equal Employment Opportunities Law (EEOL), the Committee noted that section 7 adopts a restrictive approach by authorizing the authorities to identify only three circumstances, which could amount to indirect discrimination, rather than by introducing a general definition of indirect discrimination that could be applied to a variety of situations. It noted the Government’s statement that indirect discrimination is too broad a concept that could be used in almost all cases, hence the decision to adopt a Ministerial Ordinance to specify the elements that could potentially be considered indirect discrimination. The Government indicates that, following discussions held from August to December 2018 in the Subcommittee on Employment, Environment and Equal Opportunities of the Labour Policy Council, no conclusions were reached on the expansion of the definition of indirect discrimination as there have been no new court rulings. In this regard, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again that the concept of indirect discrimination is imperative to identify and address situations in which certain treatment is extended equally to everybody, but leads to discriminatory results for one particular group protected by the Convention, such as women, ethnic and religious groups, or persons of a certain social origin. In practice, such discrimination is subtle and less visible, making it even more important to ensure there is a clear framework for addressing it, and proactive measures are required to eliminate it. Further, the Committee wishes to point out that, where no cases or complaints, or very few, are being lodged, this is likely to indicate a lack of an appropriate legal framework, lack of awareness of rights, lack of confidence in or absence of practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. The lack of complaints or cases could also indicate that the system of recording violations is insufficiently developed (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 746 and 870). The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on any further discussions, decisions or actions taken to address indirect discrimination related to all the components of remuneration received by men and women, and not only wages.

Fixed-term employment. Recalling that the Convention applies to both regular and non-regular employment, including fixed-term contract workers, and taking into account the gender dimension of the employment structure, the Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the measures taken to address the undervaluation of female dominated occupations and adjust remuneration levels across regular and non-regular employment classifications in both the public and private sectors; (2) the measures taken to improve women’s opportunities to enter and re-enter regular employment; and (3) the progress made in the adoption of guidelines on the employment of regular and non-regular workers.

With regard to the measures taken to adjust remuneration levels across regular and non-regular employment classifications in both the public and private sectors, the Government recalls that the remuneration of national public service employees is determined according to the principle of remuneration based on the duties prescribed in section 62 of the National Public Service Act, as well as in section 2 of the Law on Remuneration for National Public Employees in Regular Service. Gender discrimination in remuneration is also prohibited under section 27 of the National Public Service Act. The remuneration of local public service employees is based on the duties prescribed in sections 24 and 26 of the Local Public Service Act, and section 13 of the Act prohibits discrimination based on sex in deciding the amount of remuneration. Concerning the measures taken to eliminate wage disparities between part-time, fixed-term and dispatched workers and regular workers in the private sector, the Government refers to the development in 2018 of the Guidelines on the prohibition of irrational treatment for part-time, fixed-term and dispatched workers, also known as the Guidelines on Equal Pay for Equal Work (thereinafter he Guidelines). According to the 2017 Action Plan for the Realization of Work Style Reform, these Guidelines identify three areas where wage disparities are prevalent: (1) basic salaries, pay rises and bonuses; (2) various kinds of allowances; and (3) education, training and welfare. Regarding the measures taken to improve women's opportunities to enter and re-enter regular employment, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). Recalling that women workers in Japan are highly concentrated in non-regular employment, the Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the application of the Guidelines on Equal Pay for Equal Work, indicating the manner in which they contribute to the reduction of wage disparities between fixed-term and regular workers, in both the public and private sectors.

Part-time work. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the application in practice of section 8 of the Part-time Workers Act; (2) the conversions requested, including from part-time to full-time, and from fixed-term to indefinite positions; and (3) the measures taken to address the issues raised by JTUC–RENGO with respect to part-time workers who are subject to different criteria for appointment in each workplace, even where the job types and work duties are the same, particularly in the local public service.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, according to the General Fact-finding Survey on Part-time Workers of 2016, the replies from 39.4 per cent of workplaces indicated that a readjustment of salaries was ensured following the revision of the Part-time Workers Act. The Government also indicates that there are no statistics, disaggregated by sex, on conversions from part-time to full-time and from fixed-term to indefinite positions. With regard to the issues raised by JTUC-RENGO concerning the criteria for appointment of part-time workers, and therefore their job classification in the local public service, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Local Public Service Act and the Local Autonomy Act were partially revised in 2017. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to contribute to closing the gender pay gap between part-time workers and regular workers. Following the revision of the Local Public Service Act and the Local Autonomy Act, the Committee also asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to extend the protection provided to part-time workers in the private sector to part-time workers in local government.

Career-track systems. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the application of the two-career track system, one for women and one for men as an employment management system, has led in practice to lower levels of women in management positions and has therefore caused wage disparity. Consequently, it urged the Government to step up its efforts to increase the percentage of women in the integrated career track and to provide information on any measures taken to promote actively objective job evaluations across the tracks. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to a survey conducted in 2017, only 6.5 per cent of employers with 10 or more employees have introduced the career-track system, covering 15.1 per cent women workers. With regard to the measures taken to promote objective job evaluations across the two tracks, the Government considers that an objective job evaluation method under which wages are decided according to the content of duties at one stage is not compatible with the salary system in Japan. The Committee notes that ,even though implemented by only 6.5 per cent of companies, the double/separate career-track system as it is devised is gender-based because it leads to significantly lower levels of women in management positions and is therefore bound to cause wage disparity between men and women workers. In this regard, the Committee encourages the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that career-track systems are not either directly or indirectly discriminatory in relation to women. It also asks the Government to provide updated statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the different tracks, as well as the impact of the career track system in force on the level of earnings of women, with a view to addressing wage discrimination.

Articles 3 and 4. Objective job evaluation and cooperation with the social partners. The Committee previously requested the Government to: (1) provide information on the measures taken to promote and develop ways in which the salary setting system can incorporate objective job evaluation methodologies, in both the private and public sectors; (2) report on the awareness raising and educational measures taken to better inform employers, employees and supervisors of objective job evaluation and the importance of ensuring that gender bias does not enter into the remuneration system; and (3) specify the status of the guidelines on support for initiatives taken by employers and employees to solve the wage disparity between men and women and to provide information on the manner in which they are recognized, promoted and applied. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that few enterprises adopt the complete job-based salary system, even if the system is introduced by combining job-based and performance-based salaries. It also states that job evaluation criteria do not necessarily facilitate the implementation of the Convention, since human resources development is based on categories of job type and employment status, rather than job requirements. The Government refers to a number of guidelines/manuals that have been elaborated to encourage companies to design clear, fair and objective salary and employment management systems, including: (1) “Guidelines for Support for Initiatives taken by Employers and Employees to Solve the Wage Disparity between Men and Women"; and (2) “Guidelines for Job Evaluation through the Grading Method by Element" revised in 2019 and currently entitled “Manual for inspection and consideration of basic salary using job evaluation” (Manual). In its observations, the JTUC–RENGO indicates that this Manual applies to part-time and fixed-term workers without taking into account the issue of wage disparities between men and women. In addition, the Manual still does not include criteria related to the workload and working environment of workers, making such evaluation disadvantageous for workers.

The Committee notes the Government’s acknowledgement that job evaluation in the country is based on workers’ individual characteristics rather than the value of the positions held. Recalling the importance of implementing objective evaluation methods that measure and compare the relative value of different jobs, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the “Guidelines for Job Evaluation through the Grading Method by Element" revised in 2019 in order to assess whether the criteria used are free from gender bias.

Enforcement. The Government indicates that in 2017, a total of 135,785 regular inspections were conducted at the national level and five violations were found of section 4 of the Labour Standards Act due to gender pay disparity. With regard to the seafarers, no violation of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value was found among the 9,518 inspections conducted from April 2017 to March 2018 by mariners labour inspectors. The Government also states that the Employment Environment and Equal Employment Departments (Offices) of the Prefectural Labour Bureaus, as well as the Maritime Safety and Environment Department and Maritime Promotion Department for seafarers provide services such as consultation, guidance and support for the settlement of disputes. Recognizing the difficulties faced by labour inspectors in identifying cases of pay discrimination, or of determining whether equal remuneration is being provided for work of equal value, particularly where men and women do not perform the same work, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the development of specific training programmes to enhance the capacity of labour inspector capacity to deal with wage discrimination cases. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to continue providing detailed information on the number of inspections conducted, the nature of the violations detected, the content of the guidance provided and the correctional action ordered by labour inspectors or the courts, in cases of violations of section 4 of the Labour Standards Law. Noting the absence of information on wage disparities in the public sector, the Committee also asks the Government to take the necessary measures to develop the collection of such data.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report. It further notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN) received on 29 August 2019.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that the tripartite committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation alleging non-observance of the Convention by the Government of Japan concluded that further measures were needed, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to promote and ensure equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in law and practice in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. Thus, in its previous comments, the Committee, while welcoming the adoption of the new Law on the Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace (Law No. 64 of 2015) which entered into force on 1 April 2016, urged the Government: (1) to take immediate and concrete action to ensure the existence of a legislative framework clearly establishing the right to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value; and (2) to consider requiring additional data on “the ratio of women’s pay to men’s pay” to be collected under Law No. 64 of 2015 on the Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace.

As regards the legislative framework, the Committee notes once again the Government’s reference in its report to section 4 of the Labour Standards Act, which provides that “an employer shall not engage in discriminatory treatment of a woman as compared to a man with respect to wages by reason of the worker being a woman” and section 119 which provides for penalties in case of violations. Discriminatory treatment with respect to wages is therefore prohibited when it is based solely on the worker being a woman and also on the general assumption that women’s average length of continuous employment is shorter than that of men. According to the Government, as long as the payroll system does not allow discrimination in wages between men and women based only on the sex of the worker, it meets the requirements of the Convention. The Government states in addition that this interpretation has been retained since the ratification of the Convention by Japan in 1967. Once again, the Government refers to the following laws: (1) the Equal Employment Opportunity Law No.113 of 1972 (EEOL), as last amended by Law No. 92 of June 1997, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in terms of the assignment, promotion, and training of workers, loans for housing and other such fringe benefits, change in job type and employment status of workers, mandatory retirement age, dismissal and renewal of the labour contract (sections 6, 7 and 8); and (2) Law No. 64 of 2015 on the Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace under which employers with 301 or more employees have the obligation, among others, to collect and analyse data on the ratio of women and men within the enterprise in areas such as new hires, hours worked, years of service and classification levels. Following the 2019 amendments, Law No. 64 expanded the obligation to employers with over 101 or more employees. The Government further indicates that, as of the end of December 2018, 99.3 per cent of employers with 301 or more full-time employees have developed action plans to foster the full participation of women in the workplace. The Government provides statistics indicating that the ratio of female employees who occupy management positions above the chief class in private enterprises was 8.7 per cent in 2015 and increased to 9.9 per cent in 2018. According to the Government, the wage disparity between men and women has also been narrowing steadily. The ratio of wages of female workers compared to those of men was 73.6 per cent in 2015 and 74.7 per cent in 2017.

The Committee notes that in its observations the NIPPON KEIDANREN indicates that the difference of remuneration between men and women results mainly from the difference of their rank and their length of service. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration that the number of female managers has increased and the disparity based on the length of service has shortened. The Committee also notes that in its observations, the JTUC–RENGO states that the law provides no response in relation to wage disparities between male and female workers based on career track-related management categories, which is a system that permits a gender-based classification system of employment management in which men are viewed as belonging to a main career track and women to a non-career track. It also fails to provide any remedy when an employer is unable to establish rational grounds for occupational gender segregation after prohibiting discrimination based on gender alone. According to the JTUC-RENGO Survey on Gender Equality in Employment, undertaken in 2017, approximately 40 per cent of both male and female respondents answered that they were doing the same jobs but on different career tracks, and approximately 40 per cent of women working in positions restricted to specific regions indicated that there should be no difference in treatment for the same job despite a different career track. JTUC-RENGO reiterates that, in order to ensure the conformity of the national legislation framework with the core principle of the Convention, section 4 of the Labour Standards Act should clearly state the principle of the Convention.

With regard to the Committee’s request to consider adding "the ratio of women's pay to men's pay" as additional data required to be included in the action plans under Law No. 64, the Government indicates that while employers are not required to examine the status of gender disparities in remuneration, they are obliged to examine the level of active participation of women in the workplace, including the differences between men and women in the ratio of management-level employees and length of service, as these elements are considered to be the principal factors of the wage disparity between men and women. According to the Government, such measures will contribute with time to the elimination of horizontal and vertical occupational gender segregation. Regarding the 2019 amendments of Law No. 64, expanding the obligation to collect and analyse data on the ratio of women and men within the enterprise in areas such as new hires, hours worked, years of service and classification levels to employers with 101 or more employees, the JTUC-RENGO considers that the obligation to report on the ratio of female workers should be expanded to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), given that more than 99 per cent of Japanese companies are SMEs, and that the employees of these companies account for approximately 70 per cent of all Japanese workers.

The Committee is bound once again to repeat that the protection against wage discrimination in section 4 of the Labour Standards Act is too limited because it does not capture fully the principle of the Convention, as it does not refer to the element of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value which is crucial for an effective application of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, prohibits discrimination in a number of areas such as recruitment, appointment and promotion, but does not directly deal with equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value. The Committee wishes to highlight once again that the concept of work of equal value lies at the heart of the Convention. It permits a broad scope of comparison, including but going beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature which is nevertheless of equal value (see General Survey on fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 673). It follows that the jobs to be compared on the basis of objective factors (such as skills, efforts, responsibilities, conditions of work, etc.) may involve different types of skills, responsibilities or conditions of work that can nevertheless be of equal value in its totality. As such, the principle of the Convention is not equivalent to the principle of non-discrimination as enshrined in section 4 of the Labour Standards Act, which does not encompass the concept of “work of equal value”. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the current legislation with a view to giving full expression to the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value enshrined in the Convention. It also reiterates its request to the Government to consider adding the ratio of women’s level of remuneration to men’s as additional data required to be collected by enterprises under the Act on Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace, as this information could be used as a warning tool by employers to investigate potential wage discrimination. Please provide detailed information on the activities of the labour inspectorate relating to the promotion and application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, as well as on any court decisions regarding wage discrimination under section 4 of the Labour Standards Act that give effect to the Convention’s principle.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee examines the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see section concerning the COVID-19 pandemic), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations made by the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO), transmitted by the Government together with its report. The Committee also notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN), transmitted by the Government together with its report and supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). It further notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the Japan Postal Industry Workers’ Union (YUSANRO) of 2016.

COVID-19 pandemic. Socioeconomic impacts. Response and recovery measures. The Committee notes the serious social and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic at the national and local levels, as well as the measures taken by the Government to mitigate it. The Committee notes that a Declaration of a State of Emergency was issued on 7 April 2020, which was subsequently lifted in all prefectures on 25 May 2020. Several emergency response packages, representing over 20 per cent of Japan’s gross domestic product (GDP), have been adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic, protect the public and move towards economic recovery. In this framework, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its supplementary report concerning the broad range of measures adopted by the Government to protect employment and livelihoods. The Government refers to, among other measures: expanding special measures on the Employment Adjustment Subsidies until December 2020; launching a fund to support workers who are forced to leave work due to the impact of COVID-19 and are not able to receive allowances during this period; and providing assistance to businesses to ensure business continuity (such as cash payments to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)) and financial subsidies to workers affected by school closures. The Committee notes that in its observations, JTUC–RENGO highlights that, taking into account the negative prospects concerning the impact of the pandemic, the expansion of the Employment Adjustment Subsidies should be implemented until at least March 2021. JTUC–RENGO points out that additional measures should be taken to encourage employers to retain workers. Recalling the comprehensive guidance provided by international labour standards, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205), which provides guidelines for developing and implementing effective, consensus-based and inclusive responses to the profound socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken, in consultation with the social partners, to address these impacts when implementing the programmes and measures aimed at ensuring the objectives of the Convention and the outcomes of these programmes and measures.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Employment trends and active labour market measures. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2019, which includes detailed information in reply to its 2017 Observation. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the implementation of measures contemplated under the “Long-term Vision for Overcoming Population Decline and Vitalizing the Local Economy in Japan” and its accompanying comprehensive strategy which provides measures for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the labour market. Furthermore, the Committee notes the adoption in 2018 of the “Act on the comprehensive promotion of labour policies” and the order for enforcement of such Act with a view to promoting a work-style reform allowing workers to choose different work styles depending on their personal circumstances. In December 2018, the Government also adopted the “Basic Guidelines for Labour Policies” which highlight the importance of effective utilization of workers’ capabilities. The Government also indicates that, since 2018, the “counter for securing human resources” is the main public employment office providing job placement services, especially in those sectors facing serious labour shortages, such as social welfare, construction, security and transportation. In this respect, the Committee notes the statistical information, compiled from the Labour Force Survey of the Statistics Bureau and provided by the Government, regarding employment trends for the period 2016–2018. The data provided indicates that labour force participation has increased despite declines in the working age population. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed updated information on the impact of the employment measures adopted, including the measures implemented under the Japan Revitalization Strategy, the Long-term Vision for Overcoming Population Decline and Vitalizing the Local Economy in Japan and the Basic Guidelines for Labour Policies. It also requests the Government to continue to provide updated detailed information, including statistics on employment trends, disaggregated by age, sex and economic sector. The Committee also reiterates its request to the Government to provide detailed updated information on the procedures for deciding on and reviewing employment measures implemented within the framework of an overall economic and social policy.

Article 3. Participation of the social partners. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government reiterates that the tripartite Labour Policy Council has deliberated on important matters concerning the enactment, amendment and enforcement of employment legislation and its opinions were taken into account in the planning and designing of employment policies. In its observations, NIPPON KEIDANREN indicates that it participated constructively in the formulation of the Basic Guidelines. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that consultations were also held with representatives of workers and employers directly affected by the employment policies developed, such as persons with disabilities, who were consulted in the framework of the Subcommittee for the Employment of Person with Disabilities under the Labour Policy Council. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the activities of the tripartite Labour Policy Council with respect to the development, implementation and review of employment policy measures and programmes, including those adopted to address the socioeconomic impact of COVID-19, and the manner in which they are coordinated with other economic and social policies. It also requests the Government to provide updated detailed information, including concrete examples of the manner in which representatives of those affected by the measures to be taken are consulted and their views taken into account in the development, implementation and review of employment policies and programmes.

The Committee notes the observations made by the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO), transmitted by the Government together with its report. The Committee also notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN), transmitted by the Government together with its report and supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). It further notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the Japan Postal Industry Workers’ Union (YUSANRO) of 2016.

Article 1 of the Convention. Non-regular workers. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government with regard to the impact of the measures taken to reduce dualism in the labour market, including information on the impact of the amended Act on Improvement of Employment Management for Part-time Workers and the revised Worker Dispatch Act, both of which came into force in 2015. The Government reports that, according to the Survey of Part-time Workers conducted in 2016, out of the 39.4 per cent of businesses that took measures to apply the revised Act on Part-Time Employment, 30.7 per cent had reviewed the working conditions of their workers with the aim of ensuring balanced or equal treatment between their regular and part-time workers. The Government adds that the Report on Worker Dispatching Business for 2016 reveals that 45.3 per cent of dispatched workers were employed as regular workers after making a request to be hired. In its observations, NIPPON KEIDANREN expresses its support to the revised Work Dispatch Act, stressing the need for its continued application in order to reduce dualism in the labour market. Furthermore, the Government indicates that, in June 2018, following the adoption of the Work Style Reform Act, amendments were introduced to the legislative framework, including to the Working Hours Arrangement Improvement Act, to eliminate unequal treatment between regular and non-regular workers (part-time, fixed-term and dispatched workers). These amendments will enter into force in April 2020 for dispatched workers and in April 2021 for workers engaged under part-time and fixed-term contracts. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the amendments seek to eliminate differences in terms and conditions of employment, such as in relation to salaries, bonuses and allowances, as well as to enhance the accountability of employers for the treatment accorded to workers. The amendments also provide guidance concerning the implementation of the Act and establish alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed updated information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex, age and type of employment contract, on the nature, implementation and impact of the measures taken to reduce dualism in the labour market, including information on the impact of the amended Act on Improvement of Employment Management for Part-time Workers and the revised Worker Dispatch Act. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to communicate information concerning the establishment and functioning of the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms established, including information on the number and types of disputes brought before these mechanisms and their outcomes.

Employment of women. The Committee notes that, according to the 2019 OECD Economic Survey on Japan, the employment rate of women increased from 60.7 per cent in 2012 to 69.6 in 2018. Nevertheless, according to the 2019 OECD Survey, the majority of working women (two-thirds) are in non-regular jobs, which pay less. Moreover, the Committee notes the presence of vertical segregation in that the share of management positions held by women in the public and private sectors is one of the lowest among the OECD member countries. This in turn contributes to a 25 per cent gender wage gap, the third highest among the OECD member countries. The Committee takes note of the adoption of Act No. 24 of 2019, which amended the Act on Promotion of Women’s Participation to increase its scope of application to companies with 101 or more full-time employees (previously limited to companies with 301 or more full-time employees). In this context, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning measures taken to promote the employment of women. The Government reports that 99.3 per cent of companies with more than 301 full employees and 5,681 general employers with 300 or less full-time employees have developed action plans to implement the Act on the Promotion of Women’s Participation, by providing for publication of data concerning the level of participation of female workers in the enterprise and for measures to support women with family responsibilities, such as reducing the waiting list to access childcare services. The Government reports that the employment rate among women with family responsibilities has increased by 8.8 per cent over the past six years. The Committee recalls its 2017 comments in relation to the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156), in which it recalled that the Convention and its Recommendation (No. 165) place the matter of equality of opportunity for workers with family responsibilities within the wider framework of measures to promote equality between the sexes (1993 General Survey on workers with family responsibilities, paragraph 58). In this regard, the Committee noted in its 2017 comments the efforts being made to encourage male employees to take child care leave and to participate more in child rearing, and urged the Government to undertake education and awareness raising activities directed at employers, workers and the public at large that address existing attitudes based on gender stereotypes of traditional gender roles of men and women within the context of promoting the achievement of equal employment opportunity between men and women. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the share of women in managerial positions in private enterprises increased from 8.7 per cent in 2015 to 9.9 per cent in 2018, and that the gender pay gap has been narrowing steadily. The Committee notes that, in its observations, JTUC-RENGO indicates that, despite the increase in the rate of employment among women, the majority of women are in fact working under casual, part-time, or non-regular contracts. JTUC-RENGO points out that, while 7.1 per cent of workers working full-time for low wages are men, the percentage of women in this situation is three times higher (22.1 per cent). JTUC-RENGO adds that the criteria established for the career advancement of women remains arbitrary and undefined. In this regard, JTUC-RENGO calls for a further revision of the Act on the Promotion of Women’s Participation. With respect to the gender-based career-tracking system, the Government indicates that strict measures are being taken to prevent the system from being used to establish different working conditions and opportunities for male and female workers, which would constitute a violation of section 6 of the Act on Securing Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed updated information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex, age and type of employment contract, on the implementation and impact of the revised Act to Promote Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace, as well as of other measures taken or envisaged to promote women’s access to decent jobs and lasting employment, including in managerial and decision-making positions. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated detailed information on the nature, extent and impact of educational and awareness raising measures to promote equitable sharing of family responsibilities that enable both women and men to exercise their right to better reconcile their professional and family responsibilities and ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in workplaces on the basis of both sex and family responsibilities. It also requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the measures taken for the strict implementation of section 6 of the Act on Securing Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment to restrict the use of the gender-based career-tracking system to ensure that women and men enjoy freedom of choice in employment and occupation, as contemplated in Article 1(2)(c) of the Convention.

Youth employment. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the impact of the measures adopted to promote employment for young persons. The Government indicates that, in 2018, 187,845 young graduates were employed as regular workers through the programme “Hello Work for New Graduates”, which provides individually tailored counselling and guidance services to new graduates in cooperation with universities and other educational institutions. The Government also refers to the implementation of the “Hello Work for Youth”, which provides various types of support activities to jobseekers and workers from the “employment ice age” generation who are engaged under precarious employment contracts (this term refers to persons that graduated between 1993 to 2004, a period characterized by an extreme slump in employment opportunities, during which young people graduating from high school or university were often unable to access the labour market). The Government reports that, in 2017, 28,403 persons were employed as regular workers through the “Hello Work for Youth” programme. In addition, the Government refers to the introduction in 2017 of a subsidy system for employers hiring workers from the “employment ice age” generation who have been working on precarious employment contracts for a specified period of time. The Government also reports that it has launched a three-year intensive programme to promote the regular employment of this category of young persons. The programme provides vocational training, career counselling and job placement services through the “Hello Work” offices, in addition to education programmes: on the job-training in the private sector: the “finish-to-start” programme (integrated courses combining qualification acquisition in a short-time and on-the-job training); and “ready-to-go” programme (human talent development courses focused on industries characterized by labour shortages or specific local needs). Subsidies are provided to programme participants in vocational and on-the-job training. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide information on the nature, content or impact of the initiatives mentioned. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed updated information, including statistical information disaggregated by age, sex and type of employment contract, on the content and the impact of the measures taken to ensure full, productive, freely chosen and lasting employment for young persons, including on the implementation of the Act for Partial Revision of the Youth Labour Welfare Act, the Hello Work for New Graduates programme, and the Hello Work for Youth programme.

Older workers. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the impact of measures taken to promote productive employment of older workers. The Government indicates that 99.8 per cent of enterprises with 31 or more workers implemented employment security measures for older workers as of June 2018. The Government adds that guidance will be provided to companies with 30 or less workers to assist them in implementing these measures. In addition, subsidies have been granted to enterprises hiring persons aged 65 or over, extending their employment, or taking measures to ensure that they have adequate working conditions. The Government adds that the revised Employment Insurance Act, which entered into force in January 2017, ensures that persons aged 65 or over are eligible for employment insurance. In 2019, the number of “lifelong participation counters” promoting the continued employment of older workers increased from 180 to 240. Moreover, in the framework of the revised Act on Stabilization of Employment of Elderly Persons, the number of local “lifetime participation promotion areas” promoting diversified employment opportunities for older persons also increased from 44 to 74 areas. The Government indicates that the working hours requirements applicable to the Silver Human Resources Centres (SHRCs) have been relaxed. The SHRCs provide job opportunities for retired citizens in the industries established in each city, town and village by Prefectural Governors. In its observations, NIPPON KEIDANREN expresses the view that job placement services for older workers should be developed. In this regard, the Government refers to the implementation of a career human resources agency project for older workers who are expected to retire, which provides job placement services to older workers. NIPPON KEIDANREN observes that the employment programmes implemented should respect the measures adopted by employers and workers to support the employment of older workers and to increase their employment opportunities. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed updated information on the impact of the measures taken to promote productive employment of older workers, including further information with respect to the implementation of such measures in enterprises with less than 30 workers.

Persons with disabilities. The Government indicates that, in the framework of the “Long-term Vision for Overcoming Population Decline and Vitalizing the Local Economy in Japan”, consistent support measures have been provided to persons with disabilities to promote their active participation in the labour market. In its observations, the JTUC-RENGO alleges claims that several prefectural governments and central government ministries incorrectly reported the number of workers with disabilities in order to comply with the statutory employment quota. JTUC-RENGO points out that, as of 1 June 2017, 2.5 per cent of persons with disabilities were reported to be working in the central government ministries compared to 2.4 per cent in the prefectural governments. JTUC-RENGO observes that after new surveys were conducted, these figures were corrected to reflect that in fact 1.17 per cent of persons with disabilities were working for central government ministries and 2.16 per cent for prefectural governments. With regard to companies in the private sector, JTUC-RENGO indicates that, as of 1 June 2018, more than half of private sector companies had failed to comply with the statutory employment quota of 2 per cent employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, JTUC-RENGO points out that, while the "exception rate system" (which provided that employers were not under an obligation to employ persons with disabilities in certain positions deemed to be of a certain complexity) was eliminated in 2004, it still exists as a transitional measure. JTUC-RENGO adds that the “exception rates figures” have not been reviewed since 2010 and calls on the Government to take the necessary measures to effectively abolish the system. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated detailed information on measures to promote the employment of workers with disabilities on the open labour market, as well as on the application of the statutory employment quota for persons with disabilities in both the public and private sectors.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Special measures to address the impact of COVID-19. In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that a special financial subsidy was put in place to support work and family-life balance in response to COVID-19, particularly applicable to workers affected by school closures. The subsidy is provided when employers allow workers who are guardians of children to take paid leave (excluding statutory annual paid leave) during the temporary closure of elementary schools or other facilities. According to the Government, from April 2020 onwards, an amount equivalent to the regular wages paid to the workers, up to 15,000 Yen (US$ 142) a day, is provided to small and medium enterprises SMEs. Moreover, workers in SMEs are also entitled to paid leave for family care. According to the Government if the total number of days of leave taken by a worker - who needs to take care of his/her family - is of 5 or more but less than 10, an amount of 200,000 Yen (US$ 1890) will be provided, while 350,000 Yen (US$ 3310) will be provided if the total number of days of leave taken per worker is 10 or more. The Committee notes that this measure is applicable for leave taken between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN) received on 29 August 2019.

Article 2 of the Convention. Application to all categories of workers. Non-regular employees. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to step up its efforts to ensure the effective application of the Convention to non-regular employees, such as fixed-term contract, part-time and dispatched workers in both the private and public sectors. The Government indicates in its report that, the Childcare Leave, Caregiver Leave, and Other Measures for the Welfare of Workers Caring for Children or Other Family Members Act (Childcare and Family Care Leave Act) was amended by Law No.14 of 2017. The amendments allow fixed-term employees to take childcare leave, provided that: (1) the employee has been employed by the same employer continuously for a year or longer at the time of submitting the request for child care leave; and (2) it is unclear whether the employment contract (or the renewed employment contract) will end/expire before the child reaches one year and six months of age. The amendments also allow fixed-term employees to take family care leave, on condition that: (1) the employee has been employed by the same employer continuously for a year or longer, at the time of submitting the request for family care leave; and (2) it is unclear whether the employment contract (or the renewed employment contract) will end/expire six months after the expiration of 93 days from the starting date of the caregiver leave.

According to the Government, a leaflet entitled “Fixed-term Employees who are Eligible for Childcare and Family Care Leave” has been prepared in 2018, as part of the awareness raising campaign on the 2017 amendments. As regards statistical information, the Government indicates that: (1) there is no statistical information on the rate of family leave taken by fixed term workers; (2) the rate of childcare leave taken in 2017 by fixed-term workers was 7.5 per cent for male and 93 per cent for female workers; (3) in 2017, 242 part-time public service workers at the national level took childcare leave, including seven male and 234 female workers; (4) in the same year, 36 part-time public service workers took family leave (4 male and 32 female employees).

The Committee notes the observations of JTUC-RENGO stating that: (1) among women who were in a regular employment relationship prior to pregnancy, only 62.2 per cent are still in a regular employment relationship by the time their first child has reached the age of one and that the proportion of these women who took childcare was 54.7 per cent; and that (2) during the debate leading up to the 2017 amendments, JTUC-RENGO submitted that the conditions placed on taking leave for workers on fixed-term contracts should be abolished, and as a result, some of them (such as the need to show the probability of renewing the employment contract) were relaxed.

The Committee welcomes the legislative efforts undertaken by the Government to enhance the application of the Convention to all workers irrespective of their contractual status. However, it notes from the above statistical information that the rate at which childcare leave taken in 2017 by fixed-term workers is significantly disproportionate between men and women and between regular and non-regular workers. Recalling that the Convention applies to all categories of workers and all branches of economic activity, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the Convention applies in practice to all categories of workers, in particular to non-regular employees and to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and their impact. The Committee also asks the Government to take the necessary measures to raise awareness among fixed-term workers about the 2017 amendments of the Childcare and Family Leave Act. Lastly, it asks the Government to continue to provide statistical information disaggregated by sex on the number of non-regular workers requesting and receiving childcare and family care leave in the private and public sectors.

Article 4(a). Organization of work. Long working hours. The Committee previously asked the Government to step up its efforts to reduce annual working hours in order to enable men and women with family responsibilities to enter and remain in the labour market. The Committee notes with interest the adoption in 2018 of the “Work Style Reform legislation” which bundles together amendments to eight laws, including the Employment Measures Act No.132 of 1966, the Labour Standards Act No.49 of 1947, and the Working Hours Arrangements Improvement Act No. 90 of 1992 to tackle inter alia the “karoshi” (death by overwork) phenomenon. The Act requires employers to implement specific measures to limit employees’ working hours, to ensure that employees take annual leave, and thus create a healthier and more flexible work environment. Concerning overtime, the new law contains among other measures, two rules that set maximum limits on overtime hours: (1) the Basic Limit Rule, which says that overtime hours cannot exceed 45 hours per month or 360 hours per year; and (2) the Extended Limit Rule, which allows employers to extend the basic limit under special circumstances (e.g. an exceptionally busy period, and an unexpected volume of customer complaints or a sudden change in product expectations). The extended limit cannot exceed 100 hours per month and 720 hours per year; and employees may not work, on average, more than 80 hours of overtime per month. The number of months in which the worker works over the Basic Limit cannot exceed six months in a year. Firms that violate these limits face a penalty of up to JPY300 000 (US$2,660) per worker. The Committee notes that highly skilled professional workers may be exempt from the new overtime provisions, and that, because labour shortage in Japan is more severe in certain sectors than in others, the following occupations will be exempt from this law for five years: car drivers, construction workers, doctors, and employees engaged in the research and development of new technology. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) has set different compliance deadlines ranging from April 1, 2019 to April 1, 2023 for different requirements of the Act to give employers sufficient time to amend their work rules and put compliance mechanisms in place depending on the size of the company. In addition to overtime work limits, the Act requires workers who are entitled to at least 10 days of annual leave to take at least five of these days each year. If an employee does not voluntarily choose to use these days, it becomes the employer’s responsibility to designate the timing in which the leave must be taken. Moreover, the Guidelines for Review of Working Hours (Guidelines for Improvement of Working Hours Arrangement) were revised to encourage the introduction of the interval system between shifts in response to enforcement of the “Work Style Reform Legislation”.

The Committee notes the observations of NIPPON KEIDANREN indicating that the limit of overtime work has been agreed with the trade unions and awareness measures have been taken to promote the take up of paid leave and compliance with the revised laws on working hours. The Government further indicates that in 2017, inspections were carried out to 25,676 workplaces, and among them 11,592 workplaces received guidance for correction and improvement of illegal overtime work.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to change Japan’s long working-hour culture, which is a major obstacle to the effective implementation of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to take proactive measures to ensure the effective application of the “Work Style Reform Legislation” to all workers. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to: (i) strictly enforce overtime work limits introduced in 2019-20; (ii) closely monitor the scheme that exempts skilled professional workers from overtime regulation to avoid excessive working hours; and (iii) introduce a minimum limit on the interval of time between the end of one work day and the beginning of the next work day. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information on the number of cases where penalties have been imposed on companies that do not comply with the maximum limits on overtime hours as well as the number of workers affected by the violations, and the amount of penalties imposed.

Articles 4(b) and 5. Childcare and family leave and facilities. The Committee notes that the 2017 legislative amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act have also introduced a set of new leave entitlements for both regular and non-regular workers. The latter are now entitled to request an extension of the period of childcare leave until the child reaches two years of age, if the child cannot attend kindergarten. In this regard, a series of initiatives to improve the childcare leave take-up by male workers have been taken, including: (1) the development of a system in which male workers are able to take childcare leave again in cases where they had taken it within eight weeks from the childbirth; (2) the possibility of using the family care leave in a whole or up to three different periods, and (3) the provision of subsidies for companies that encourage male workers to take childcare leave. The Government indicates that, in 2017 the percentage rate of workers who took childcare leave reached 5.14 per cent for male workers, and 83.2 per cent for female workers; whereas, in 2014, this rate was 5.2 per cent and 25.3 per cent respectively. In 2014, the rate of workers who used family care leave reached 1.2 per cent for female workers and 1.1 per cent for male workers; whereas this rate was 2.4 per cent and 3.1 per cent respectively in 2017. Moreover, the number of local public service employees in full-time work who took childcare leave in 2017 was 46,207 (2,750 male and 43,457 female employees), while the number of those who took family care leave in the same year was 2,816 (819 male and 1,997 female employees). The Committee notes that in its observations, JTUC–RENGO expressed concern about the fact that the vast majority of workers who take childcare leave are women and that, such a situation will lead to a reversal of promotion of women’s participation. It adds that there is still only a small proportion of men taking childcare leave compared to women, with a rate of 82.2 per cent for women compared to 6.16 per cent for men. This is mainly due to the issue of the number of children waiting to enter authorized day care facilities. JTUC–RENGO indicates that despite the government’s plans to expand childcare facilities: in April 2018, 19,895 children were on waiting lists for nursery centres [….]. The major cause of such a situation is the shortage of childcare and nursing workers and their level of remuneration which is lower than the average remuneration for workers in other sectors (around 110,000 yen (US$900) per month). Although an increase to 3,000 yen (US$2,000) per month was decided in April 2019 following the adoption of the New Economic Policy Package (“the Package”), such a measure is not going to be sufficient to eliminate disparity in wages. JTUC-RENGO recalls that, the Government is required to implement effective policies to quickly resolve the issue of children on day care waiting lists and promote the use of childcare leave by men by providing sufficient quality nursery centres. Referring to the 2017 Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ Employment Status Survey, JTUC-RENGO states that 3 million out of the 59.21 million employees in Japan engage in nursing care while working. Of those people, men account for 1.27 million, whereas women account for 1.73 million. Regarding family leave services, JTUC–RENGO expresses the view that, to respond to the needs of an extremely aging population, it is important to balance both work and nursing care and expand leave and time off for nursing care.

In its reply, the Government indicates that it has adopted a number of measures to enhance the establishment of childcare facilities, among them the adoption of: (1) the “New Economic Policy Package” aiming at encouraging people who are engaging in nursing care activities through a pay rise equivalent to 3,000 yen per month; (2) the implementation of the “Acceleration Plan for Elimination of Waiting Children“ under which 535,000 childcare facilities were created in 2017; (3) the ”Plan for Raising Children with Peace of Mind“ adopted in June 2017, under which 320,000 childcare facilities are going to be created by the end of 2020; and (4) the “Comprehensive After-school Plan for Children“ which aims at creating additional capacity for about 250,000 children for the period of 2019 to 2021. According to the Government, as of April 2018, 27,916 childcare places were created, and 2,505 children were enrolled. Moreover, in order to enhance the after-school facilities, additional capacity for about 300,000 children spaces will be secured by the end of 2023.

In light of the above, the Committee welcomes the Government’s effort to promote greater work-life balance by expanding the leave entitlements to both regular and non-regular workers and enabling a better share of parental leave and family leave, particularly for men. However, it notes that, in practice: (i) women end up taking the majority of these leaves; (ii) a majority of women withdraw from the labour market after the birth of their first child; and (iii) women only enter the labour market once their children have grown up and the burden of bringing up children is reduced, and often then only as non-regular workers in order to be able to take care of ageing parents. Further, the Committee notes that, although the Government had promised to eliminate the lengthy waiting lists for authorized day care centres by 2018, it had to postpone the achievement of this goal to March 2021, and notes that it is a phenomenon compounded by the shortage of childcare workers and the cost of such services. In this regard, it recalls that the lack of quality, affordable care services has been identified by both men and women as one of the biggest challenges for women with family responsibilities who are in paid work, as well as the inflexibility of the hours of care of these services. Referring to its 2019 General Observation, the Committee wishes to highlight that it is essential that workers with family responsibilities have access to child and family care facilities meeting the needs of children of different ages, after school care, care for the disabled, and elderly care, that are affordable, accessible to their home and work, responsive to working hours, and provide quality care. The Committee therefore urges the Government to continue to take proactive measures to address effectively: (i) issues that discourage the employment of women; (ii) gender stereotypes, so that more men are encouraged to effectively avail themselves of the new childcare and family care leaves; and (iii) the lack of opportunities/incentives for women to join and remain in the labour market. It also requests the Government to report on the progress made towards reaching the objective of the elimination of waiting lists to facilitate the enrolment of children in day care centres by March 2021 and the measures taken to extend coverage of care services and facilities for other dependent members of the family, as well as the results achieved. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information, disaggregated by sex and categories of workers (regular, non-regular) on the extent to which men and women workers make use of the leave entitlements following the amendments of the relevant provisions of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act No.14.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report and received on 13 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN).

Article 4 of the Convention. Transfer to remote places. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to monitor effectively transfer practices, including information on the measures taken to supervise the application of section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law that requires employers to take into account family responsibilities when reassigning workers to remote places to ease the difficulty for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities.The Government indicates, in its report, that the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (MHLW) established a working group to draft “the Points of Employment Management Concerning Relocation” report in January 2017. This report aims to collect information on the manner in which companies deal with the relocation issues and its impact on the realization of the objective of work-life balance. The Government also indicates that there are no statistical information on practices of relocation disaggregated by sex. However, in 2017, eight requests for assistance over transfers were made based on section 52-4 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, which provides that the Director of the Prefecture Labour Bureau may provide necessary advice or guidance in order to resolve disputes. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that, all measures compatibles with national conditions and possibilities shall be taken with a view to creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment to enable workers with family responsibilities – men and women - to exercise their right to free choice of employment. Consequently, once again, it wishes to stress the impact of such transfers on employees with family responsibilities, as they can make it difficult for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the conclusions reached by the above-mentioned working group established by the MHLW and the measures taken following the publication of its report in terms of transfer practices. The Committee also encourages the Government to compile statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the impact of transfer practices on the needs of workers with family responsibilities and to communicate any studies on the subject.

Article 6. Education on sharing of family responsibilities. Concerning the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to overcoming existing difficulties for men and women workers with family responsibilities, including stereotyping with respect to family responsibilities, the Government indicates that the MHLW has prepared a manual for the formulation of "the Support Plan for Return from Childcare Leave" and another manual for the formulation of "Family Care Support Plan”. This is part of a campaign to raise awareness of employers, workers and the public at large on the difficulties encountered by workers with family responsibilities to balance work and life responsibilities to engender a climate of opinion conducive to overcoming these difficulties. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on awareness raising and educational activities taken or envisaged to enable a better understanding of employers and workers, and society in general, of the needs of workers with family responsibilities, both men and women. Please also provide information on any specific activities undertaken toward this end, with the active participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and the results achieved in terms of applying the provisions of this Convention, as well as the way workers’ and employers’ organizations are fully integrated into the development, monitoring and updating of work–family balance measures.

Article 8. Termination of employment. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act prohibiting dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment that may occur because of change in family responsibilities. The Government indicates that, if the MHLW finds that disadvantageous treatment was applied, strict guidance is provided to correct such a treatment and that, in 2017, the number of workers who consulted the Prefectural Labour Bureaus because of disadvantageous treatment on the ground of pregnancy, childbirth, childcare leave, reached 10,969. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to prevent disadvantageous treatment or termination of employment from occurring on the ground of family responsibilities. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any cases relating to the dismissal of workers on the ground of family responsibilities disaggregated by sex dealt with by the competent authorities and the related remedies.

The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its general observation adopted in 2019, recalling the relevance, importance and practical usefulness of the principles laid down in the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165), whose aim is to ensure that all workers with family responsibilities – women as well as men – are not disadvantaged in relation to other workers and, in particular, that women with family responsibilities are not disadvantaged in comparison to men with family responsibilities. Recalling the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work’s aim to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stressing the importance of the Convention in achieving this goal, the Committee called for member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations, to strengthen efforts towards specific goals.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for Japan on 18 November 2017 and 8 January 2019 respectively. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 October 2020 and 26 October 2020 respectively, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 on this issue.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. The Committee notes that some of the provisions of the Seafarers Act apply differently some of the requirements implementing the MLC, 2006 for “ships that navigate only in coasting areas or smooth water areas and only between domestic ports” (e.g. Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Seafarers Act regarding annual leave). The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all ships, irrespective of their tonnage or the nature of their voyage, other than those ships which navigate exclusively in inland waters or waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply whether publicly or privately owned, ordinary engaged in commercial activities, other than ships engaged in fishing, traditional build, warships or naval auxiliaries (Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4). The Committee requests the Government: (i) to explain the meaning of the following expression: “ships that navigate only in coasting areas or smooth water areas and only between domestic ports”; and (ii) to provide statistical information about the number and categories of ships falling under this category. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships within the meaning of the Convention, including ships engaged in domestic voyages.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i), 4, 5 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. National determination. The Committee noted in its previous comment that by Note Verbale dated 5 August 2013, the Government informed the ILO that, concerning Article II, paragraph 5, of the Convention, the Convention would not apply to “ships of less than 20 gross tonnage and ships for which owners only employ relatives residing with such owners”. Recalling that the Convention does not allow any exclusions on the basis of tonnage or the fact that only relatives of the owner work in a ship, the Committee therefore requested the Government to specify if the ships whose categories are mentioned in the Note Verbale of 5 August 2013 exclusively navigate in waters within, or closely adjacent to, sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply and, if that is not the case, to review the national determination made in relation to these ships, in consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in order to fully comply with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will take the Committee’s comment into account and reconsider the definition of ship covered by the Convention which is mentioned in Note Verbale dated 5 August 2013. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article II, paragraphs 6 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships under 200 gross tonnage. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that by Note Verbale dated 5 August 2013, the Government informed the ILO that “[w]ith reference to Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention, Japan will not apply the provisions of Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1 of the Convention to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages”. The Committee recalled that the flexibility provided in Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention only applies to the Code of the Convention (Standards and Guidelines) and therefore drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the decision to exclude ships of less than 200 gross tonnage from the application of Regulation 3.1 is not in conformity with Article II of the Convention. The Committee also considered that a Member is not entitled to determine that a Standard of the Convention, almost in its entirety, is not applicable to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage. The Committee therefore requested the Government to (i) re-examine, in consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, the national determination it has made concerning the provisions of Standard A3.1 to exclude the reference to Regulation 3.1; and (ii) to specify which provisions of this Standard are not reasonable or practicable to apply at the present time and to explain how the subject matter is dealt with differently by national laws or regulations or collective bargaining agreements or other measures. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the reference to Regulation 3.1 will be excluded from the national determination it has made in order to comply with the Convention. With respect to the provisions of Standard A3.1, the Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it determined, after consulting with shipowner and seafarer organizations, in the Seafarer Sectional Meeting, Maritime Group Discussion, the Council of Transport Policy, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, on July 30, 2010, that it would not be reasonable or practicable at the present time to apply MLC, 2006 requirements with respect to accommodation and recreation facilities to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages due to the structure of the ships and the mode of navigation, etc., and therefore the standards of domestic laws and regulations will be differently imposed. The Committee takes note of some of the specific requirements provided under Standard A3.1, paragraphs 6 to 9, that Japan applies differently for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages (e.g. Article 111, paragraph 2 of Rule of Ship Appliance provides that the height of crew rooms, etc. of the ships must be 1.8 meters or more, instead of a minimum of 203 centimetres required by Standard A3.1, paragraph 6 (a); Article 115-9 of Rule of Ship Appliance provides that the dimensions of a berth unit for the ships shall be at least 180 centimetres by 60 centimetres instead of dimensions of at least 198 centimetres by 80 centimetres as required by Standard A3.1, paragraph 9 (e)). While noting some of the alternative requirements to those provided for under Standard A3.1, paragraphs 6 to 9, the Committee notes that it is not clear whether the other requirements of Standard A3.1 are applied, given that by Note Verbale dated 5 August 2013, the Government indicated that it will not apply [in its entirety] the provisions of Standard A3.1 of the Convention to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages. Recalling that ships under 200 GT not engaged in international voyages may not be fully excluded from all the requirements of the Convention beyond “certain details of the Code”, the Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate: (i) the specific provisions of Standard A3.1 that nonetheless apply to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages; and (ii) to provide in detail the list of alternative national provisions through which “the subject matter is dealt with differently” for each paragraph of Standard A3.1, that these ships are not required to comply with.

Article III. Fundamental Rights and Principles. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that Japan has not ratified the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), nor the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and requested the Government to provide information on how it has satisfied itself that its laws and regulations, in the context of the MLC, 2006, respect these fundamental rights referred to in Article III. The Committee takes note the Government’s indication that Article 6 of the Seafarers Act stipulates that the provisions of the Labour Standards Act, set out under Articles 3, 4, 5, 117 and 119, which lay down the principles of prohibition of forced labour and of equal treatment and equal wages for men and women apply to seafarers and therefore respect the fundamental rights and principles referred to in Article III, paragraphs (b) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee however notes that, with regard to the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, Articles 3 and 4 of the Labour Standards Act only provide for certain grounds of discrimination (gender, nationality, creed or social status). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide more information, in particular as regards seafarers’ rights, regarding the elimination of any discrimination in respect of employment and occupation made on the basis of race, colour and political opinion.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Substantial Equivalence. Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b). Medical doctor on board. The Committee notes that Article 82(1) of the Seafarers Act provides that a vessel “of not less than 3,000 gross tonnage” with a maximum capacity of not less than 100 persons which navigates within the oceangoing area or the coasting area shall carry a doctor or doctors. The Committee recalls that Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) applies to all ships covered by the Convention, regardless of tonnage. The Committee observes that the DMLC, Part I refers to substantial equivalence in relation to Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b). The Committee observes however that the Government has not provided information on the national legal provisions that it regards as an alternative solution to the requirement of the Code of the MLC, 2006. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention provides that “a Member which is not in position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code may, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Convention, implement Part A through provisions in its laws and regulations or other measures which are substantially equivalent to the provisions of Part A”. The Committee recalls that explanations are required where a national implementing measure differs from the requirements of Part A of the Code. In particular, the Committee needs information on the reason why the Member was not in a position to implement the requirements in Part A of the Code, as well as (unless obvious) on the reason why the Member was satisfied that the substantial equivalence met the criteria set out in paragraph 4 of Article VI. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information, as explained above, with respect to the adoption of substantial equivalence measures concerning Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b).

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 1. Minimum age. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that Article 85(1) of the Seafarers Act allows for an exception to the prohibition of the employment, engagement or work on board a ship of any person under the age of 16 for “ships that employ only members belonging to the same household”. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to amend Article 85(1) of the Seafarers Act so as to ensure that no exceptions are permitted to the minimum age for work. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that, on the basis of comments from the Committee, it will reconsider its domestic laws. Recalling that no person below the minimum age shall be employed or engaged or work on ship, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard and provide copy of the amended legislation once adopted.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee noted in its previous comment that Article 86(1), of the Seafarers Act prohibits seafarers under the age of 18 to engage in work during the period from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. the next day but that paragraph 3 of the same Article stipulates that the provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply “with regard to fishing boats and ships that employ only members of the same household as the shipowner”. The Committee recalled that the only exceptions to the strict compliance with the night work restriction authorized are those provided for under Standard A1.1, paragraph 3. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to amend Article 86(3) of the Seafarers Act so as to ensure that exceptions to night work are only allowed in conformity with the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication that it will reconsider its domestic laws, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard and provide copy of the amended legislation once adopted.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Seafarers Act, employment of seafarers under 18 is prohibited where the work is likely to jeopardize their health and safety and that the list of such types of work is included in Article 28 of the Regulations for Labour Safety and Health of Seafarers. The Committee requested the Government to specify if the list of hazardous work has been determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, as required under Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that this list was determined after consulting with shipowner and seafarer organizations in the 224th Seafarer Central Labour Committee (on March 19, 1964) when the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health for Seafarers was established in 1964. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to provide information on any revision and update of the list in consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 5. Medical Certificate. Right to have a further examination. The Committee notes that Article 83, paragraph 1 of the Seafarers Act and Article 55 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Seafarers Act regulate the requirements with respect to the medical fitness examinations of seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that undertaking further examinations for a medical certificate is not prohibited under the Seafarers Act and that it is therefore possible for a seafarer to have a further examination from another medical doctor. The Committee however observes that the Government does not specify what is the legal basis, in its national provisions, for allowing seafarers who have been refused a certificate or have had a limitation imposed on their ability to work to have a further examination by another independent medical practitioner or by an independent medical referee as provided for under Standard A1.2, paragraph 5, of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative or regulatory provisions that give effect to this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee notes that the Seafarers Employment Security Act contains relevant provisions relating to Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4. The Committee notes the list of licensed recruitment and placement services regulated under the requirements of Standard A1.4 of the Convention. While noting the Government’s indication that unemployment insurance for seafarers is contained in the Seafarers Employment Insurance Act, the Committee observes that the Government has not specified the relevant provisions of this Act that protect seafarers against monetary loss that they may incur as result of the failure of recruitment and placement services. In light of the general nature of the information provided by the Government on the application of Regulation 1.4, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information, in particular, on how the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5, are complied with (prohibition of blacklists, keeping registers, qualification of seafarers, protection of seafarers in foreign ports, managing complaints and establishment of a compulsory insurance scheme to compensate seafarers).

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 4. Content of the seafarers’ employment agreement. The Committee notes that Articles 32 and 36 of the Seafarers Act and Article 16 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Seafarers Act reflect the majority of the matters to be included in seafarers’ employment agreements (hereafter SEA) listed under Standard A2.1, paragraph 4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that paragraphs (i) and (viii) of Article 16 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Seafarers Act give effect to the requirements of Standard A2.1, paragraph 4 (g) with respect to the conditions of termination of the agreement. The Committee observes however that paragraphs (i) and (viii) of Article 16 of the Ordinance refer respectively to “the period of employment” and to “matters concerning retirement, dismissal, suspension of work and sanction” and do not include the particulars specified in Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(g). The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that the particulars to be contained in the SEA include the termination of the agreement and the conditions thereof, including: (i) if the agreement has been made for an indefinite period, the conditions entitling either party to terminate it, as well as the required notice period, which shall not be less for the shipowner than for the seafarer; (ii) if the agreement has been made for a definite period, the date fixed for its expiry; and (iii) if the agreement has been made for a voyage, the port of destination and the time which has to expire after arrival before the seafarer should be discharged, in conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 4(g).

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s reference to Articles 74 and 75 of the Seafarers Act, which stipulate the conditions to be entitled to annual leave and its duration. Noting that, under these provisions, in order to be entitled to annual leave, a seafarer must have “engaged in work continuously on a ship belonging to the same enterprise for six months”, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it has given due consideration to Guideline B2.4.1, paragraph 3, in implementing its obligations concerning annual leave in order to ensure that seafarers who work less than six months for an enterprise are given paid annual leave on a pro-rata basis. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Chapter VII of the Seafarers Act gives effect to Standard A2.4, paragraph 1, of the Convention by providing the minimum standards of annual leave for seafarers. The Committee however observes once again that under the provisions of Articles 74 and 75 of the Seafarers Act, only seafarers who have been engaged in work for six months and over are entitled to annual leave. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all seafarers, including those who work less than six months for an enterprise, are effectively entitled to annual paid leave, in accordance with Regulation 2.4, paragraph 1.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Minimum paid annual leave. Method of calculation. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, depending on the length of contract or type of ship on which the seafarer works, the latter may be entitled to less than 2.5 days of leave per month, which is the minimum required under Standard A2.4, paragraph 2 and requested the Government to explain the measures taken to conform to the minimum requirements of the Convention regarding annual leave. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the indication that, pursuant to Article 80 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) signed between the All Japan Seamen’s Union and the Japanese Shipowners’ Association Ocean-going Labour Subcommittee, 120 days per year of onshore vacation (paid leave) are granted. While noting this information, the Committee notes that (i) this CBA does not cover all seafarers, in accordance with article 5 of the CBA; and (ii) even though the CBA currently in force provides for more than the minimum annual leave required by Standard A2.4, paragraph 2, Standard A2.4, paragraph 1, requires the adoption of laws and regulations determining paid annual leave for seafarers on the basis of a minimum of 2.5 calendar days per month of employment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or taken to give full effect to Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b). Repatriation. Maximum period of service on board. In its previous comment, noting that the legislation contained no reference to the maximum period of service on board a ship following which a seafarer is entitled to repatriation, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions giving effect to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Article 47, paragraph 1, of the Seafarers Act provides the entitlement to repatriation of all seafarers irrespective of their period of employment and that consequently, the maximum duration of service periods on board following which a seafarer is entitled to repatriation required by Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b) of the MLC, 2006 is not specified in the Seafarers Act. The Committee observes however that the absence of reference in Article 47 of the Seafarers Act to the maximum period of service on board a ship following which a seafarer is entitled to repatriation, as well as the mention in Article 75, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same Act to additional days of paid leave for additional months of work after the period of one year of continuous work, may suggest that a seafarer could be working on board a ship for a period of 12 months or more. The Committee recalls that from the combined reading of Standard A2.4, paragraph 3, on annual leave, and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), on repatriation, it flows that the maximum continuous period of shipboard service without leave is, in principle, 11 months. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with these provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(c). Repatriation. Entitlements. In its previous comment, noting that Article 47(1) of the Seafarers Act provides that the shipowner shall repatriate the seafarer to the port where the seafarer was employed or, at the request of the seafarer, to another location if this is not more expensive, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it has given due consideration to the provisions of Guideline B2.5.1, paragraphs 6 and 7, according to which seafarers should have the right to choose from among the prescribed destinations the place to which they are repatriated. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Article 47, paragraph 1, of the Seafarers Act provides that the destination of repatriation can be decided by seafarers within the limit of the expense and that the various destinations listed in Guideline B2.5.1, paragraph 6 are generally covered. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that seafarers only pay the costs of repatriation where they have been found in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective bargaining agreements, to be in serious default of their obligations, and to indicate in particular the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers employment obligations”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Seafarers Act ensures that seafarers pay expenses for repatriation only when a serious default of employment duty of seafarers has been recognized under the circumstances listed in Article 40 Item (ii) through (v) of the Seafarers Act. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the standards and process of the recognition of wilful intent or gross negligence are as follows: shipowners receive the reports from the master and they make final decisions by considering provisions of rewards and punishment under collective bargaining agreements and diagnosis of injury or illness by a doctor. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the definition of what is to be considered as a serious misconduct should not be left to the shipowner’s decision. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on provisions in national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective agreements setting out the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied in order for a seafarer to be found liable for serious default.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. Abandonment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Japanese Protection & Indemnity Insurance covers the financial security system to ensure the entitlement to repatriation and that it has submitted an example of a certificate of insurance in respect of seafarer repatriation costs and liabilities as required under Regulation 2.5.2, Standard A2.5.2. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment (if yes, specify if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.7 and the Code. Manning Levels. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it is ensured that, when determining manning levels, the competent authority takes into account all the requirements of the Convention concerning food and catering. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that Article 80, paragraph 4 of the Seafarers Act provides that persons who are capable of processing food adequately shall be on board. While noting the Government’s indication, the examples of minimum safety manning certificates supplied by the Government (regarding manning of ten and more seafarers) do not contemplate a ship’s cook in the manning of the ships concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to review its practice regarding minimum safety manning certificates in order to take into consideration Regulation 3.2 and the Code. It also requests the Government to indicate whether any mechanisms exist to investigate and resolve any complaints or disputes regarding the minimum safety manning levels (Guideline B2.7.1).

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers. The Committee notes that the Government’s report provides information concerning the Seafarers Employment Security Act. The Committee observes however that this Act prescribes requirements with respect to seafarer recruitment and placement services rather than measures concerning career and skill development and opportunities for seafarers’ employment. The Committee draws the Government’s attention, in this respect, to Regulation 2.8 and the Code, which require the adoption, by all Members who have seafarers domiciled in their territories, of policies to encourage career and skill development and employment opportunities for seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information with respect to any policies adopted in this regard.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Exemptions. The Committee noted in its previous comment that Article 115-4-2 of the Rule of Ship Appliance provides that lightning equipment must be installed in crew rooms but does not specify that sleeping rooms and mess rooms shall be lit by natural light and provided with adequate artificial light. The Committee further observed that the Rule of Ship Appliance provides the maritime authority with a broad power to make exceptions from the national requirements implementing the Convention. The Committee recalled that Standard A3.1, paragraph 21, allows exemptions only where they are expressly permitted in the Standard and only for particular circumstances in which such exemptions can be clearly justified on strong grounds and subject to protecting the seafarers’ health and safety. The Committee requested the Government to review its legislation in order to ensure that exemptions are only permitted in full compliance with Standard A3.1 and to specify, when relevant, if consultations with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations have taken place. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Article 115-4 of the Rule of Ship Appliance requires that crew rooms and mess rooms shall be equipped with skylights, ports, etc. for proper natural lighting. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that crew rooms include sleeping rooms and mess rooms as provided for in Article 110 of the said Rule. While taking note of the Government’s indications, the Committee observes that Articles 115-4 and 115-4-2 also provide that the maritime authority may grant exceptions taking into account the structure of the ship, mode of navigation, etc. The Committee further notes that the examples of exemptions provided by the Government do not describe in detail the “circumstances in which such exemptions can be clearly justified” or the “strong grounds” required by Standard A3.1, paragraph 21. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all exemptions from the requirements of Regulation 3.1 are limited to the cases and conditions provided for in Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21 and requests the Government to provide a detailed list of the types of exemptions granted by type of vessel.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 2 (c), 3 and 4. Food and catering. Training. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, according to Article 1 of the Ordinance for persons assigned for providing food on board ships, a certificate of ship’s cook is required only for seafarers assuming a position of supervision in ships which navigate in “ocean going area or greater coasting area”. Recalling that Standard A3.2, paragraphs 2(c), 3 and 4, requires that catering staff be properly trained or instructed and that ship’s cooks are trained, qualified and competent, including through the completion of a training course approved or recognized by the competent authority, the Committee requested the Government to provide additional information as regards the requirements for being recruited as a ship’s cook, even if not in a position of supervision. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that concerning those who are recruited as catering staff but not in a position of supervision, maritime authorities require that they shall have the basic knowledge of the business concerning cooking in ships. The Committee also notes that the Government further refers to circular notices (Kokukaiun No. 156 and No. 158, February 28, 2013) which provide that the following three personnel are those who have the basic knowledge: (i) a person who has passed the onboard cooking test, or a person who has graduated from the Chef/Administrative Work Course of Incorporated Administrative Agency Kaiin Gakko; (ii) a person who completed following courses: (a) “Cooking Training for Stewards” at the Institution on Maritime Technical Education Agency; (b) “Onboard cooking Education Course” at Onomichi Marine Techno; (c) “Onboard Cooking Training” or “Onboard Cooks Training” at Japan Seamen’s Service; and (iii) a person who completed education using the text “Sennai no Shokuji Kanri” (Onboard Dietary Management) pursuant to the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, as issued by the Association for Accident Prevention among Seafarers, in company, ship or places similar to them. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the District Transport Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, issues “Certificate of Completion of Training for Persons assigned for Cooking” after confirming that those who have the basic knowledge satisfy the requirements mentioned above. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to provide a copy of the circular notices (Kokukaiun No. 156 and No. 158, February 28, 2013) that establish the requirements for being recruited as a ship’s cook.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board and ashore. The Committee noted in its previous comment the Government’s statement that seafarers’ health protection is ensured under the Seafarers Act, the Mariners’ Insurance Act and the Regulations for Labour Safety and Health of Seafarers. Noting however the absence of detailed information on how the requirements of the Convention have been implemented, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the specific provisions giving effect to Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(a) and (b). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention are covered by Article 81 paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, Articles 89 to 92 and 95 of the Seafarers Act, Articles 53, 54 and 59 to 62 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Seafarers Act, Articles 30 to 32 and 41 to 43 of the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health, and Article 29 of the Mariners Insurance Act. It further notes that the Government indicates that the requirement of Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention is covered by Article 81 paragraph 1, Articles 82 and 82-2 of the Seafarers Act, Articles 53 and 54 of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Seafarers Act, Articles 7, 8 items 3 and 4, 32, 42-2 and 43 of the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c). Medical care on board and ashore. Right to visit a doctor or dentist in ports of call. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide more information on seafarers’ rights to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delay in ports of call and to provide a copy of the relevant circular notice mentioned by the Government which gives effect to this requirement. The Committee notes the provisions of circular notice (Kokukaiun No.156, February 28, 2013) “Acts on Reforming a Part of the Seafarers Act with the Ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention” which provides in paragraph 5 that based on the Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c) of the MLC, 2006, a shipowner must give seafarers the right to visit a qualified medical doctor or a dentist without delay in ports of call, where practicable. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(a). Medical care on board and ashore. Minimum Requirements. Medicine Chest, medical equipment and medical guide. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that ships’ medicine chests, medical equipment and medical guides are properly maintained and subject to periodical and intermediate inspections by virtue of Articles 81(1), 100-2 and 100-4 of the Seafarers Act as well as of Articles 53 and 54 of the Ordinance for enforcement of the said Act. Noting that Articles 100-2 and 100-4 refer to periodical inspection and intermediate inspections taking place every two to five years and that Articles 53 and 54 of the Ordinance do not specify the frequency of inspections of ships’ medicine chests, medical equipment and medical guides, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it gives effect to Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(a). The Committee notes that the Government refers to Article 8 of the Regulations for Labour Safety and Health of Seafarers which provides that inspection and maintenance of medicine and other medical goods and medical publications shall be part of the nominated health supervisor’s duties and that this inspection shall be conducted annually under the safety management manual based on ISM Code. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 2. Shipowners’ liability. Expenses of medical care and board and lodging away from home. Limits. The Committee noted in its previous comment that Article 89(1) of the Seafarers Act provides that, when a seafarer suffers an injury or illness in the course of the duties, the shipowner shall provide medical care at the shipowner’s expense or meet the necessary expenses for medical care until the said injury or illness has healed. However, paragraph 2 of the same Article limits the shipowner’s liability to a period of three months in the case of an injury or illness “outside the course of duties while the employment continues”. The Committee recalled that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 2, allows for national laws or regulations to limit the liability of the shipowner (for medical care and board and lodging expenses) to a period which shall not be less than 16 weeks from the day of injury or the commencement of the sickness and requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that this requirement of the Convention is implemented in particular with respect to illness, whether incurred during or outside of service. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that concerning illness incurred otherwise than in the service of the ship, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 89 of the Seafarers Act, expenses for medical care are paid to seafarers during three months and as all seafarers must be covered by the mariners insurance, under Article 95 of the same Act, the shipowner shall pay expenses for medical care through the mariners’ insurance. The Government further indicates that, under paragraph 3 of Article 53 of the Mariners Insurance Act, expenses for medical care are paid to seafarers during the period from the day of disembarkment until the end of the month to which the day of the third month belongs. After that, if seafarers retain their status as seafarers, expenses for medical care are paid through the mariner’s insurance. If they are no longer seafarers, expenses continue to be paid through the mariners’ insurance as the insured by the Health Insurance Voluntary Continuation System, or through the general onshore medical insurance. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.4 and Standard A4.4, paragraph 3. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. Welfare boards. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are currently four shore-based facilities operating in the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how welfare facilities and services are regularly reviewed in order to ensure that they are appropriate in the light of changes in the needs of seafarers resulting from technical, operational and other developments in the shipping industry, as provided for under Standard A4.4, paragraph 3 of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime Labour Certificate and Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that Article 100-3 of the Seafarers Act specifies the scope of inspections in order to deliver the maritime labour certificate, in accordance with Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code and Appendix A5-I which lists the 16 areas to be inspected and approved by the flag State before certifying a ship. It noted, however, that none of the items listed under Article 100-3(1) mentions accommodation, on-board recreational facilities, or the use of private recruitment and placement services, which are three of the 14 areas subject to inspection prior to certification and requested the Government to provide additional information on the provisions requiring that these three items be inspected prior to certification. Concerning accommodation and on-board recreational facilities, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to Article 100-3, paragraph 1, item (xxxii) which provides that effective Ship Inspection Certificate stipulated in paragraph 1, Article 9 of the Ship Safety Act or Temporary Navigation Permit stipulated in paragraph 2 of the same Article shall be obtained. The Government indicates that accommodation and recreational facilities are inspected in accordance with the Ship Safety Act and that during a Maritime Labour Inspection, the issuance or not of a Ship Inspection Certificate or Temporary Navigation Permit is inspected. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions that require accommodation and on-board recreational facilities to be among the matters that shall be inspected in order for a Ship Inspection Certificate or Temporary Navigation Permit to be issued. With regard to the private recruitment and placement services, the Government indicates that the employment of the following seafarers is prohibited in accordance with the provision of Article 32-2, which is inspected in accordance with the provision of Article 100-3, paragraph 1, item (ii): (i) Seafarers who use the domestic seafarer’s recruitment and job placement agency without authorization based on Seafarers Employment Security Act; and (ii) Seafarers who use the foreign seafarers recruitment and job placement agency which is not compatible for the standards of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Powers of inspectors. The Committee noted, in its previous comment, that Article 101 of the Seafarers Act bestows the power to prohibit a ship from leaving port on the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and requested the Government to specify if inspectors are empowered to detain a ship, as required under Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Article 108, paragraph 2 of the Seafarers Act which provides that seafarers' labour inspector shall immediately exercise the authority of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism when imperious need exists to ensure the safety of the ship at sea, pursuant to Article 101 of the Seafarers Act. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.2.1 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Inspections in port. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide additional information concerning the method used for assessing the effectiveness of the port State inspection and monitoring system for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the requirements of the Convention (including seafarers’ rights), as required under Regulation 5.2.1, paragraph 5. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the qualifications and training required for carrying out port State control duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that with respect to the effective inspection and monitoring system by the port state, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has established the “Quality Management System with continual improvement” based on the requirements of ISO9001, and assesses the quality management system of the Maritime Administrations including Port State Control (PSC) on the basis of PDCA cycle. With respect to the qualification of PSC officers, national law provides the appointment standards of PSC officers in accordance with IMO Resolution A.1119 (30). Specifically, they shall have the career as Ship Inspector or Safety Management and Seafarers Labour Inspector, and required to complete the training course based on IMO model course, and on the job training. The Quality Management System improved continuously provides the standards of training programme including knowledge of the MLC, 2006 and there are induction training course, intermediate training and practical operation training. The Committee takes note of this information.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Japan

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)