Settling labor disputes promptly
(From The Japan Times Jan. 30 issue)

労働審判制度導入に向けて

    Each session will be conducted by a three-member "industrial tribunal commission," comprising one "labor relations referee" from management, one from labor, plus a district court judge. This participatory-type procedure is designed to work out specific solutions to labor disputes.

    The referee representing management will be well acquainted with corporate management and labor relations. Similarly, the referee representing labor — such as a full-time union official — will be well versed in day-to-day workplace conditions. These members are expected to make use of their knowledge and experience to put the new system on the right track.

    The commission, first of all, will need to produce as many concrete results as possible by presenting practical solutions acceptable to the parties involved, including the complainants. Holding a trial under the new system should be considered a measure of last resort. Preferably, seemingly intractable disputes should be referred to arbitration panels so that they can be settled in a more flexible and efficient manner.

    The number of disputes involving labor relations has increased markedly in recent years, reflecting the prolonged business slump. In fiscal 2004, labor-dispute "counseling corners" throughout the country, including prefectural labor relations bureaus, received 820,000 complaints and inquiries. Of these, 160,000 cases involved individual labor disputes. Figures represent more than three times the figures for fiscal 2001.

    It takes time and money to resolve these problems the conventional way — through labor relations commissions or district courts. The industrial tribunal system, for which enabling legislation passed the Diet in 2004, should benefit workers who otherwise would be unable to pursue a claim to resolution. The industrial tribunal commission will first try to produce a mediation plan. Failing that, it will hold a trial. A final decision is expected to be reached in about three months at the most.

    If no objection is filed, the decision will be just as legally binding as an ordinary court-mediated settlement. If an objection is filed, the decision will lose its legal binding power. The dispute, however, can be settled through a civil trial in the same district court.

    The new system calls for registering and training labor relations referees because neither labor nor management has been represented in labor-related trials so far. A national group studying labor-management relations conducted a training program from last May through November. Of the approximately 1,250 "graduates," about 500 have registered with district courts as referee candidates for labor and management.

    Each participant in the program has received recommendations from about 500 people — management-side participants from Nippon Keidanren (the Japan Business Federation), and labor-side participants from Rengo (the Japanese Trade Union Confederation), Zenroren (the National Confederation of Trade Unions) and other labor groups. Labor and management need to work more closely together to put up as many qualified candidates as possible.

    Meanwhile, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in January conducted a mock trial in Tokyo via satellite hookups with local bar associations throughout the country. During the demonstration, a judge from the Tokyo District Court and referee candidates from labor and management handled a hypothetical case involving a worker's dismissal.

    One problem with a question-and-answer session is that disputes involving factual relations between the parties involved — including challenges of dismissals — will be difficult to resolve in a labor court because, contrary to the purpose of the new system, such a trial could become protracted. It has been suggested, rightly, that the parties involved should first consider carefully which method they prefer — industrial tribunal, civil trial or arbitration through the labor relations commission.

    Also worth noting is the suggestion that parties should present the necessary documents, such as petitions and replies, to the court at an early date so that referees can get a better picture of the dispute involved. That would clarify the points at issue ahead of the trial and speed proceedings. These and other remaining difficulties need to be effectively addressed before April to build a productive industrial tribunal system.

The Japan Times Weekly
Feb. 4, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    労働審判委員会は、裁判官である労働審判官1名と、労働者側及び事業者側から1名ずつ選出される労働審判員の計3名で構成する。

    事業者側審判員は企業経営と労使関係について、労働者側審判員は職場の具体的問題について、専門知識を持っていることが必要とされる。

    労使紛争は、近年の経済停滞を反映して増加している。04年度に全国の労働紛争相談センターが取り扱った相談件数は、82万件（16万件は個別的紛争に関する）で、01年の3倍以上にのぼった。

    労使紛争を通常の労働委員会、裁判所で解決しようとすれば長い時間と多額の費用が必要になる。労働審判委員会は、まず調停案を提示し、それで解決できなければ、審判へ移行し、3ヵ月以内に決定が下される。

    決定に対し異議申し立てがなければ、通常の裁判所の判断と同様に法的拘束力を持つ。申し立てがあれば、決定は法的拘束力を失い、民事裁判に移行することができる。

    新制度では労働審判員の研修、登録が必要になる。昨年、研修を完了した1250人のうち500人が地方裁判所に労働側、事業者側の審判員候補として登録した。研修参加者は日本経団連、連合などの推薦を受けている。

    労働審判、特に解雇をめぐる問題は所期の目的に反して長期化する場合も考えられる。紛争当事者はまず、労働審判、民事裁判、労働委員会の調停のどれを選ぶか慎重に考慮した方がよいだろう。

    紛争当事者は要求や回答などの書類を労働審判委員会に早期に提出し、争点を明確にし、審判を迅速化すべきである。効果的新制度をつくるため、4月の導入前にいろいろな問題点を解決する必要がある。