Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 343, Novembre 2006

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

1. 120. The Committee examined this case on its merits at its November 2002 session. The complainant organization, Japan Postal Industry Workers’ Union (YUSANRO), alleged that the existing legal provisions against unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination, as well as their implementation, were inadequate. The Committee concluded that the relevant procedure was far too slow and inadequate; it requested the Government to ensure that, in future, complaints of unfair labour practices be processed speedily and effectively, and to keep it informed of the outcome of Case No. 2-1998, once it was finalized by the Central Labour Relations Commission (CLRC) [see 329th Report, paras. 549-566].
2. 121. In communications dated 5 and 6 January 2006, the Government indicates that the case in question was divided as follows: Case No. 2(2) 1998, concerning the lease of the trade union’s office; and Case No. 2(1) 1998 concerning the change of postings. According to the Government, on 7 October 2005, the CLRC ruled partially in favour of the complainant in Case No. 2(2) 1998 regarding the leases. Case No. 2(1) 1998 regarding the change of postings was dismissed by the CLRC on 24 November 2004. The Government adds that the CLRC decided, in March 2005, that it would handle cases swiftly and would aim at closing new complaints as rapidly as possible, and in any event within 18 months.
3. 122. In a communication dated 22 May 2006, YUSANRO states that CLRC hearings took place on 27 March and 28 April 2003 (a tentative amicable settlement failed); the examination and pleadings were concluded on 6 September 2004. On 18 November, the CLRC issued a relief order regarding the transfer of a union branch leader aimed at weakening the union. On 13 September 2005, the CLRC ruled that the refusal to rent an office to the union constituted an unfair labour practice, as follows: “Japan Post must authorize the Postal Industry Workers’ Union to use a room in the premise of each post office as union office. Prior to acknowledging each union office, Japan Post must also consult quickly and in good faith with the Yusanro branch concerned and conclude a reasonable agreement about the location, the area and other concrete conditions for renting the office.”
4. 123. Japan Post appealed to the Tokyo District Court, demanding the annulment of the CLRC decision, with which it refused to comply, even though it should do so until a court finally decides to annul the order. In such circumstances, the CLRC may request the Tokyo District Court to issue an urgent order, upon which Japan Post should comply or pay a penalty to the complainant. However, in spite of YUSANRO’s repeated requests, the CLRC has refused to initiate the procedure to have an “urgent order” issued by the Court; merely waiting for the final court decision on this administrative matter would aggravate the damage already suffered so far by YUSANRO.
5. 124. The Committee takes note of this information. Noting that this complaint, filed in February 2002, concerns events that go back as far as June 1998, the Committee recalls that justice delayed is justice denied and requests the Government to provide its observations on the additional information provided by YUSANRO on 22 May 2006.