Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 218, Novembre 1982

1. 349. Complaints of violations of trade union rights in Japan were presented in communications dated, respectively, 22 and 24 August 1982 by the following trade union organisations: the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU); the All-Japan Postal Labour Union, the Japan Railway Workers' Union and the Nippon Telephone and Telegram Workers' Union (22 August), organisations affiliated to the Japanese Confederation of Labour (DOMEI); the General Council of Trade Unions of Japan (SOHYO), the National Railway Workers' Union, the Nihon National Railway Motive Power Union, the International Transport Workers' Federation, the All Forestry Workers' Union, the Japan Postal Workers' Union, the Council of Public Corporation and National Enterprise Workers' Union, the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International, the Japan Telecommunications Workers' Union, the All Printing Agency Workers' Union, the International Graphic Federation, the Alcohol Monopoly Workers' Union, the All Mint Agency Workers' Union, the Japan Tobacco and Salt Public Corporation Workers' Union and the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (various letters all dated 24 August 1982). By a communication dated 30 August 1982 the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers associated itself with the complaints. On 20 September 1982, the All Japan Postal Labour Union, the Japan Railway Workers' Union and the Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Workers' Union sent additional information in connection with the complaint. The Government sent its observations on 13 October 1982.
2. 350. Japan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 351. In their various letters, the complainants allege that the Government has violated the principles of freedom of association by failing to implement arbitration awards in the public corporation and national enterprise sectors issued by the Public Corporation and National Enterprise Labour Relations Commission (PCNELRC).
2. 352. The complainants explain the background to the situation as follows: in accordance with the currently existing practice and procedures concerning wage increases due in April 1982, the various Japanese public corporation and national enterprise trade unions submitted wage demands to the managements in March 1982; as collective bargaining was unsuccessful, on 13 and 14 April they applied for mediation to the tripartite PCNELRC in accordance with the relevant legislation; when mediation failed, the PCNELRC set up an arbitration Committee comprising only the members representing the public interest with a view to final settlement of the dispute; on 8 May 1982 the Committee issued its arbitration awards granting monthly wage increases as of 1 April 1982 for the various public corporation and national enterprise sectors. From copies of the various awards, supplied by the complainants, it appears that the Committee arrived at an average wage increase rate for 1982 of 6.9 per cent and it expressed the hope that the awards would be implemented promptly for all the employees concerned. It also called upon the government authorities to give special consideration to seeking to obtain the funds necessary to ensure implementation of the awards.
3. 353. However, the complainants continue, the Government did not permit the managements to accept or implement the awards and, on 18 May 1982, submitted the cases to the National Diet for decision in accordance with Article 16 of the Public Corporation and National Enterprise Labour Relations Law. According to the complainants, the Government justified its action by citing its own pending budgetary arrangements.
4. 354. The complainants supply copies of the representations which various public corporation and national enterprise unions addressed to the Prime minister on 11 May, 13 and 30 July 1982 in which they claim that the awards themselves are close to the minimum wage increase necessary to maintain real living standards for the employees concerned and urge the Government to observe Article 35 of the above-mentioned Law requiring the Government to endeavour "as much as possible" to implement the awards.
5. 355. The complainants state that despite the unusual extension of 94 days, the Ordinary Diet Session did not deal with the arbitration awards; they claim that this is due to the Government's lack of positive intention or willingness to pursue its deliberations on the implementation thereof. According to the complainants, this is the first time that implementation of arbitration awards has been delayed for an unreasonable length of time, even in years of budgetary difficulties. A table is supplied showing the short time lapse between the dates of awards in these sectors and the dates of decision for their implementation taken by the Government since this type of wage revision commenced in 1958. The complainants state that the previous prompt implementation was in line with the Government's repeated assurances that the PCNELRC arbitration machinery compensates for the denial of the right to strike to public employees. In this latter connection, the complainants quote various cases in which the Committee on Freedom of Association has stressed the importance, whenever strikes in essential services or the civil service are forbidden, of ensuring adequate guarantees to safeguard to the full the interests of the workers thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests.

B. The Government's reply

1. 356. The Government describes the factual background to the wage increase situation pointing out that the financial resources required to implement the arbitration awards amount to 2,479 hundred million yen, whereas the appropriation for wage increases in the budget for the 1982 financial year is 559 hundred million yen. In view of this deficit, during the three Cabinet level discussions of the awards on 12 and 14 May 1982, it was decided to refer them to the Diet in accordance with Article 16 of the relevant Law. The Government points out that this accords with Article 85 of the Constitution (which reads "No money shall be expended, nor shall the State obligate itself, except as authorised by the Diet") and avoids a situation where arbitration awards would be immediately null and void if funds were not available from appropriated budgets. The Government also cites a 1977 Japanese Supreme Court decision which, it states, supports such reference to the Diet.
2. 357. According to the Government, consultations were held in the Diet between the Government and opposition parties as to bow to handle the awards in relation to other important bills, and it was unanimously decided to carry the matter over to the next Session of the Diet. The Government states that it explained to the unions concerned, in good faith, the circumstances in which the awards had to be held over. Lastly, the Government indicates that an Extraordinary Session of the Diet is anticipated before the end of 1982 and its decision on the awards is expected to be made promptly. The Government undertakes to report to the ILO any progress in the deliberation by the Diet on the treatment of the awards.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 358. The Committee observes that this case involves Government referral to the Diet of arbitration awards granting wage increases to various public corporation and national enterprises. According to the complainants the failure to implement these awards promptly and their referral to the Diet constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association and, in particular, of those guarantees which should be provided where the right to strike is prohibited in essential services or the civil service, including the full and prompt implementation of arbitration awards. The Government, however, states that it is acting in accordance with the relevant legislation and expects a decision on the awards to be made by the Diet before the end of 1982.
2. 359. The Committee has dealt with directly similar allegations against the Japanese Government on at least two previous occasions. While noting the Government's assurance in this case that the Diet will decide on the awards before the end of 1982, the Committee considers it appropriate to recall that whenever strikes in essential services or in the civil service are forbidden or subject to restriction - as is the case in question - adequate guarantees must be ensured to safeguard to the full the interests of the workers thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests. The Committee would stress as it has in the past that any such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties can take part at every stage and in which the awards are binding it all cases on both parties; these awards, once they have been made, should be fully and promptly implemented. Moreover, it also stresses that the reservation of budgetary powers to the legislative authority should not have the effect of preventing compliance with the terms of awards handed down by the compulsory arbitration tribunal. Any departure from this practice would detract from the effective application of the above-stated principle.
3. 360. In these circumstances, the Committee would express the hope that the extraordinary session of the Diet, announced by the Government, will be held at an early date and that a decision on this matter will be taken, due regard being had to the principles stated above. It requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in the matter.