Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 346, Juin 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 95. The Committee last examined this case on its merits at its November 2006 session. The complainant organization, Japan Postal Industry Workers’ Union (YUSANRO), which had alleged that the existing legal provisions against unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination were inadequate, including in their implementation, had submitted new information respecting Case No. 2-1998 before the Central Labour Relations Commission (CLRC), according to which the CLRC had (1) issued a relief order regarding the transfer of a union leader aimed at weakening the union, and (2) ruled that the refusal to rent an office to the union constituted an unfair labour practice. The latter ruling ordered Japan Post to authorize the union to use a room in each post office as a union office; however Japan Post appealed to the Tokyo District Court demanding the annulment of the CLRC decision. The complainant alleged that despite its repeated requests, the CLRC refused to initiate the procedure to have an “urgent order” issued by the Court requiring Japan Post to comply with the CLRC decision, pending the Court’s ruling, or pay a penalty to the complainant. The complainant must therefore await the final court decision, thus aggravating the damage it has already suffered in this matter. Noting the above information, the Committee recalled that justice delayed is justice denied and requested the Government to provide its observations on the information submitted by the complainant [see 343rd Report, paras 120–124].
2. 96. In a communication of 17 January 2007 the Government states, with respect to the CLRC’s refusal to issue an “urgent order”, that the purpose of emergency orders is to secure the effectiveness of a remedial order issued by the CLRC while a lawsuit brought by an employer for the remedial order’s annulment is pending before the Court. The CLRC petitions the Court for an emergency order if it determines, after examining the particulars of the case, that tentative enforcement of the remedial order is necessary: on this basis, since 2001 the CLRC has filed requests for emergency orders in about 22 per cent of the cases where employers have appealed its remedial orders to the Court. In respect of Case 2(2)-1998, referred to by the complainant, the CLRC did not file a request for an emergency order as it did not recognize any pressing circumstances that would make it difficult to achieve the remedial order’s expected effect, such as the normalization of labour relations by correcting unfair labour practices. The CLRC considers that at present there is no reason for changing this attitude. The Government adds, in respect of this issue, that penalties for the violation of an emergency order do not apply to Japan Post.
3. 97. The Government also indicates that the CLRC had not issued a relief order with regard to the transfer of a trade union leader, as the complainant had alleged, but rather dismissed the complainant’s complaint that the transfer constituted an unfair labour practice as lacking sufficient merit.
4. 98. In a communication of 30 April 2007, the Government states, with regard to
   • Case 2(2)-1998, that the CLRC filed a request for an emergency order with the court on
5. 11 April 2007.
6. 99. With respect to the case concerning the transfer of a trade union leader, the Committee notes that there appears to be a discrepancy in the information before it. The complainant had previously alleged that a relief order had been issued by the CLRC with respect to the transfer, whereas the Government indicates that the CLRC had in fact dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it will not pursue its examination of this aspect of the case unless new information is submitted by the complainant.
7. 100. With respect to Case 2(2)-1998, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the CLRC has petitioned the Tokyo District Court for an emergency order to obtain compliance with its ruling in favour of the complainant, pending the Court’s decision. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments respecting this case, and to transmit a copy of the Court’s decision once it is handed down.