PMP Premium News

As we have previously informed, last autumn in the Tokyo District Court the Japan Post Office was challenged on not paying workers fairly, using the “Same Job Same Pay” principle regarding a number of allowances which were paid to full time employees but not to fixed term workers.

1) Year End New Year Allowance: This period is the busiest time of the year for the post office, regardless of status and hence 80% of this allowance should be to the fixed term workers.

2) Housing Allowance: This allowance is paid to Full time employees, even those who are not required to be transferred and hence 60% of this allowance should also be paid to the fixed term workers.

Similarly, on February 21st this year, the Osaka District Court ruled, in agreement with the Tokyo District Court, that according to Article 20 of the Labor Contracts Act, Fixed Term Contract Workers should be paid the same as Full Time Employees.
When looking at the details, the Tokyo District Court did not agree there was a difference between full time and non-full time workers, and during the extremely busy New Year Greeting Card period, all workers were extremely busy and did not agree that there was a difference. They confirmed this with the Housing Allowance, due to the fact that this was paid to all employees even those who do not need to move. Hence the same allowances should be paid to both Employees and Fixed Term Workers.
The Osaka District Court also looked at the Family Allowance (known at Japan Post as the Dependent Allowance), and determined that it was unreasonable that a worker’s status would differentiate the burden on dependent family member and hence not paying was irrational and hence non-payment was judged to be illegal.

Albeit District Court rulings, the ruling that the Family Allowance should also be paid to Fixed Term Contractors requires careful consideration.
There are many Companies paying the Family Allowance and hence it is necessary to review the wording around this allowance in the Compensation Regulations to ensure that it can be explained in keeping with Article 20* of the Labor Contracts Act.

*Article 20 of the Labor Contracts Act follows:
Article 20 (Prohibition of Unreasonable Labor Conditions by Providing a Fixed Term)
If a labor condition of a fixed-term labor contract for a Worker is different from the counterpart labor condition of another labor contract without a fixed term for another Worker with the same Employer due to the existence of a fixed term, it is not to be found unreasonable, considering the content of the duties of the Workers and the extent of responsibility accompanying the said duties (hereinafter referred to as the “content of duties” in this Article), the extent of changes in the content of duties and work locations, and other circumstances.

Thank you.