#6: Hokkaido Kyodo Kumiai Tsushinsha Labor Union Case
Sapporo District Court Ruling Aug. 6, 2020 (p5, Rodo-hanrei #1232)
In this case, X, who was expelled from Labor Union Y, argued that such disposition of expulsion was invalid, and the court ruled that the disposition of expulsion was invalid.
1. Decision framework (Rule)
This decision is based on the rule that if the union's disposition of expulsion exceeds the bounds of authority or is illegal as an abuse, it will be null and void.
The two concrete decision frameworks are: (1) falling under the exclusion grounds called "control grounds" (unclear meaning) and (2) disposition of expulsion that does not cause a significant loss of balance.
2. No Expulsion Ground or Expulsion Procedure
One of the most noteworthy points was that some of X's inappropriate words and actions claimed by Y occurred before the expulsion grounds and expulsion procedures were established, which raised the question of whether there was a basis for the disposition of exclusion.
In this respect, a labor union is an organization recognized under the Constitution and has authority to govern the union and control its members, and therefore, it is said to have the inherent governing power. Some cases acknowledged that a labor union may take the disposition of expulsion even if there are no expulsion grounds or expulsion procedures.
However, this judgment does not refer to the governing power, and presupposes that there are expulsion grounds and expulsion procedures (see (1) above). Therefore, logic and structure of this decision is different from these cases. These cases are about the disposition of expulsion WITHOUT expulsion grounds, but this case is about that WITH expulsion grounds.
In other words, if no exclusion grounds or expulsion procedure is required, only (2) will be problematic because (1) will not be necessary, and only whether or not the disposition of expulsion balanced will be considered.
Nevertheless, even if we take into account that the words and actions alleged in this case do not constitute the grounds for expulsion, it is unlikely that the disposition of expulsion will restore equilibrium.
This is because, for example, although X did not attend convention or was absent from workplace meeting, considering that the court's evaluation of similar words and actions after the expulsion grounds and expulsion procedures were established have been of little hindrance to Y's activities, it seems that such words and actions would also be of little hindrance to Y's activities.
If so, it would seem that the decision was made in a legal structure that could be briefly explained without the need to have difficult discussions (whether Y has governing power, why exclusion grounds and expulsion procedures are not required, what conditions are required for this purpose, and whether they are fulfilled, etc.).
From this viewpoint, the legality of the disposition of expulsion by a labor union is, in principle, determined in accordance with (1)(2) as in this judicial precedent. However, in exceptional cases, if the words and actions of the member are malicious and the member is expelled with circumspect procedures, the disposition of expulsion may be effective as a judicial precedent for remedy.
3. Effect of expulsion
The second point of particular interest is the impact of expulsion by Y.
The court has not made it clear and I do not know the motive for Y to insist on expulsion of X and the motive for X to defy Y to the extent of filling a lawsuit Y. The union shop agreement had not been concluded, so even if X is no longer qualified as a Y's member, X is not forced to leave the company, and there should be no problem in continuing to work at the company even if X leaves the union.
Does this mean that the company to which X belongs is small, and that if X left the union, X might not be able to have good work relations with his or her colleagues? Or are union activities recommended because of the nature of the company X works for, and are important for, work evaluation, and the loss of membership adversely affects working conditions in the company?
This is similar to the case with the union shop agreement if it significantly impact corporate life. If this is the case, the disposition of expulsion of the union must be carried out carefully and the hurdle of reasonableness seems to be high, so the court seems to have been on point in clarifying the fact-finding and evaluation.
4. Practical points
The third point that is particularly noteworthy is the procedure leading to the disposition of expulsion.
Despite the fact that Y itself stipulates that it is necessary to give an opportunity for explanation in the expulsion procedure, Y actually did not observe this requirement in substance, and the court examined the importance of the opportunity for explanation in detail. This shows that the court attaches great importance to this.
In this way, with regard to the illegality of disposition of expulsion, the importance of the reasonableness of procedures is common between union and company for dismissal and disciplinary action. In the labor law, process is becoming increasingly important, for example, when determining whether to return to work after sick leave.
For the management of the company, problems within the labor union are not particularly relevant, but it seems to be meaningful to understand that the process is also important within the union and to seek transparency in the union's activities.
※ Japanese original
※ Among the Japanese case law books relating to labor and employment law, the Rodo-hanrei is the oldest and most prestigious, having been published since 1967.
※ I am a facilitator of a monthly study that covers all cases in the Rodo-hanrei, at the Japan In-house Lawyers‘ Association, JILA in Tokyo and Osaka, and at the study group of Sharoshi in Tokyo. This series of articles are the result of the study group.
※ This series has turned into a book, from the publisher of Rodo-hanrei! So, this series of study and articles are recognized as the most reliable guidebook!
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？