Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) - Japan (Ratification: 1995)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

A Government representative recalled that birth rates in his country were declining sharply, which would seriously affect the Japanese economy and society as a whole. The Government had therefore been promoting various measures to help workers harmonize their working and family lives. For instance, provisions for childcare leave for workers in the private sector had been set out in law in 1991, as had provisions for family care leave in 1995, the year in which the Convention had been ratified. The situation of declining birth rates also necessitated additional measures, including various programmes to help families raise their children. These measures should be adopted in close collaboration with the parties concerned, including central and local governments and employers. New draft legislation had been submitted to the current session of the Diet to revise the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act. The draft legislation reflected the outcome of discussions with employers' and workers' representatives and offered possible solutions to several of the problems raised by the Committee of Experts. With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts, and particularly the fact that the Convention was intended to cover all workers, he emphasized that support plans for workers for the harmonization of their working and family lives were clearly significant for workers in general, although not all workers would necessarily benefit from all the measures. He agreed that such measures needed in general to serve as a basis for the harmonization of working and family lives and that they should be kept constantly under review. He recalled that there were many fixed-term workers in his country who continued to work for the same employer for several years through the repeated renewal of their contracts. With a view to taking this into consideration, the scope of statutory childcare leave and family care leave had been reviewed and, once the new draft legislation had been enacted, fixed-term workers would be entitled to both types of leave. With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the issue of personnel transfers to remote workplaces, he indicated that the revision of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act in 2001 had provided that employers had to give consideration to workers with family responsibilities in the event of the relocation of their jobs to remote workplaces. The Government expected employers and workers to make efforts to apply this system effectively and was providing guidance to employers in cases which gave rise to problems. Turning to the question of short-term childcare leave, he said that the revision of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act in 2001 also provided that employers had to endeavour to take measures to provide leave to care for a sick child for employees with children who had not yet begun attending elementary school. Furthermore, the draft law revising the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act ensured the right to take leave to care for a sick child. In addition, the Government intended to adopt further measures to help workers harmonize their working and family lives.

The Worker members recalled that, although the Conference Committee had never considered the present case before, the Committee of Experts had made a series of comments and had received a substantial number of communications from Japanese trade unions concerning difficulties in the application of the Convention. According to the Japanese trade unions, the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act did not apply to fixed-term contract workers and the Government remained unwilling to institutionalize childcare and nursing leave for wage-based workers, nor had it taken any measures to ensure the application of the Convention to wage-based workers in state-run hospitals and sanatoriums, who were doing the same work as regular workers, but whose position was unstable. The Committee of Experts had noted the Government's indication that childcare and nursing leave systems were set up for continuous long-term employment and were not therefore applicable to part-time workers or wage-based contract workers. In this respect, the Worker members recalled that the Convention was intended to cover all workers, whether in full-time, part-time, temporary or other forms of employment, and whether in waged or unwaged employment.

With regard to the transfers of personnel to remote workplaces without consultation or an announcement from the employer prior to their transfer, the Worker members noted that workers were being forced to choose between accepting the transfer and being separated from their families, refusing the transfer and risking being dismissed, or simply leaving their job. Transfers to remote workplaces in any case tended to increase the cost of living and dramatically changed the living and working conditions of workers, as well as their family life. In this respect, the Government had stated in its report that decisions on personnel transfers, for example in hospitals and sanatoriums, were based on the needs of the service, the principle of the merit system, the qualifications, abilities and experience of the personnel, as well as the health and family responsibilities of the worker concerned. The Government had added that employees were not allowed to refuse a transfer without a rational reason, but that the system did not discriminate against employees, including those who were nearing retirement. The Worker members noted in this regard the finding by the Committee of Experts that, despite the provisions of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act and the established guidelines, under which employers had to give consideration to workers with family responsibilities, it appeared that transfers continued to be imposed upon employees unilaterally without prior consultation and without recognition of their objections due to family responsibilities. The Worker members agreed with the conclusions of the Committee of Experts on this point that employers should give the fullest possible consideration to the genuine need of workers to care for members of their families and that efforts to promote the balancing of work and family responsibilities should include the balancing of any advances that the workers might make in their professional lives with their family situation. In this respect, it was vital to emphasize the link between the balancing of work and family responsibilities and gender equality. The Worker members therefore urged the Government to take the necessary action to remove the practice of imposing transfers on workers so that national practice could be brought into greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention. With respect to the comments made by the Japanese trade unions concerning the lack of protection in Japanese legislation against termination of employment due to family responsibilities, the Worker members emphasized the obligation upon employers to provide moral working conditions. They supported the finding of the Committee of Experts that the protection provided under the Civil Code and the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act was both too general, as it did not specify workers with family responsibilities or protection from termination of employment, and narrower than the protection envisaged in Article 8 of the Convention, as it was not directed at family responsibilities in general. They therefore called upon the Government to provide specific protection in law against termination of employment due to family responsibilities. They also called upon the Government to develop new legislation, in consultation with workers' and employers' organizations, with a view to overcoming the shortcomings in national law and practice identified by the Committee of Experts, thereby offering Japanese workers a better quality of life.

The Employer members, following the order of the comments of the Committee of Experts, noted that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act did not apply to workers on fixed-term contracts as well as to workers paid by the hour. While, according to the Government representative, a Bill to amend the legislation would extend the application of childcare leave to workers who were de facto employed on a permanent basis due to repeated renewals of their contracts, workers paid by the hour would remain excluded from the application of childcare leave. The Government representative had also indicated that the revision of the Act was intended to limit overtime work for workers with family responsibilities. In this respect, the Employer members noted the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention respecting its scope of application. In the view of the Committee of Experts, this meant that the Convention was intended to cover all workers, irrespective of their type of contract. However, the Employer members considered that the wording of Article 2 also allowed for a different interpretation. This belief was strengthened by the provisions of Articles 1 and 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, referring to Articles 1 and 5 of Convention No. 111, which offered the possibility of differentiation with regard to the application of the Convention. The question therefore remained open as to whether or not the Government was under the obligation to extend the scope of application of the Act. Accordingly, they called upon the Government to indicate in a report the reasons for the exclusion of certain groups of workers from the scope of the above Act. With regard to the issue of company regulations, which often required full-time employees to work overtime and change workplaces, and which as a consequence forced workers with family responsibilities to work part time, the Employer members noted the belief expressed by the Japanese trade unions that both full- and part-time workers with family responsibilities should be exempted from overtime. In this respect, they noted that the Committee of Experts had merely requested the Government to try to ensure that agreements were reached in accordance with the intent and provisions of the Convention. It was the view of the Employer members that the Committee of Experts had adopted the appropriate approach on this issue, since not all the details related to employment relationships needed to be regulated by law. If such details were regulated by law, this would place in jeopardy flexibility and the principle of the freedom to conclude contracts. They could not comment on the draft Bill referred to by the Committee of Experts as they had no knowledge of its content.

With regard to the issue of the transfer of workers to another workplace without prior consultation or recognition of their objections due to family responsibilities, the Employer members considered that no employer would transfer an employee to another workplace without a good reason, as every transfer implied a loss of the experience gained in the former workplace. In most cases, employers transferred workers to avoid dismissals due to the lack of employment opportunities. With regard to a complaint alleging that the promotion of nurses implied a transfer to another workplace, they said that this was quite a normal outcome when promotion was obtained. As Article 4(a) of the Convention did not set out the right to a specific workplace, this matter was not regulated by the Convention and there could therefore be no violation on this point. The Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that the proposed legislative changes constituted considerable progress and also with the request for the Government to supply further information on the practical application of the new provisions. With regard to the transfer of hospitals and sanatoriums to a new independent administrative agency and the fact that it remained unclear what would happen to in-house nurseries and the employment of their personnel, the Employer members noted the decision of the Government on this subject, but could not comment further as they had no knowledge of the content of the decision. Nor could they give further comments on the issue of termination of employment on grounds of family responsibilities, as the Committee of Experts had not provided a definitive opinion on a difficult legal situation and the Government had referred to new provisions providing for protection against dismissal. In conclusion, the Employer members welcomed the fact that the legislative changes referred to by the Government had been adopted after consultation with the social partners. They called upon the Government to provide full information on the present case in a report to the Committee of Experts and recalled that the flexibility clauses contained in the Convention needed to be taken into consideration when further reviewing the case.

The Worker member of Japan said that the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) welcomed the revised Childcare and Family Care Leave Act proposed in the current Diet session. The new draft legislation would improve several problems described in the information submitted to the Committee of Experts in September 2003. The Government had drafted the revision of the Act in full consultation with RENGO and the employers. However, there were several issues that needed improvement in the revised Act. Article 2 of the Convention provided that all workers should be equally included. The revised Act would cover fixed-term workers who had been previously excluded, but it was going to be interpreted too narrowly. He called on the Government to apply the law broadly by eliminating the conditions of application. The law should apply to fixed-term workers who had worked for one year without interruption. The Committee of Experts clearly stated that the Convention applied to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. It stated that the Convention was intended to cover all workers "whether in full-time, part-time, temporary or other forms of employment, and whether in waged or unwaged employment". If the application of the law excluded a particular group of workers, it would be contradictory to the principles of the Convention. He asked the Government to revise the relevant laws for irregular workers in the public sector because they were not currently covered. According to statistics from 2003, Japan had a workforce of about 54 million people. About 20 per cent, or 11 million, were irregular workers, 8 million of whom, or 73 per cent, were women. Only once all these women workers, regardless of their employment, were covered by the full application of this legislation, would the law be practical and meaningful. With respect to male workers, he urged the Government to set up special measures to allow men easy access to childcare leave because the ratio of male workers who used it was remarkably low. Under the revised Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, employers were obliged to give consideration to workers with family responsibilities when relocating these workers to remote workplaces. JTUC-RENGO would closely monitor how the Act was being implemented. The speaker urged the employers to relocate workers only with their full consent so that worker relocations were not carried out unilaterally at the employers' convenience. The reduction of annual working time to fewer than 1,800 hours should also be carried out as soon as possible. It was important to realize that people, whether they had family responsibilities or not, should be able to enjoy a balance between their working and private lives. In conclusion, he requested the Government to introduce legislation to regulate overtime work.

The Worker member of Norway acknowledged that the present law had been revised and was in better compliance with the Convention than the previous law. However, there were still some unresolved issues. She supported the request by JTUC-RENGO that the new law should not be applied and interpreted in a narrow manner. To be in compliance with the Convention, all workers should be equally included and should enjoy the same rights to childcare leave and nursing leave. It was important to keep in mind that this Convention concerned the rights of children. Any child, whether he or she had parents who worked on a permanent basis or as wage earners, should have the right to good childcare. It was also important that this right to childcare leave not be restricted to full-time workers. More and more workers, most of them women, were working part time. By way of example, she highlighted certain practices in her country as suggestions on how to secure better social rights for workers with family responsibilities under the Convention. In Norway, part-time workers enjoyed rights to childcare leave and nursing leave according to the hours they worked and there was no discrimination between men and women on this point. There was an attempt, either through collective agreements or legislation, to treat workers in irregular employment in the same way as those who were employed in more traditional work. As for personnel transfers, if a public workplace in Norway was moved to another part of the country, workers could refuse to be transferred. Workers were further given priority to jobs in other public workplaces where they and their families lived, or offered financial compensation. Moreover, the Working Environment Act of Norway established maternity protection and parental leave for families with newborns as well as provisions for paid rights to stay home to take care of sick children. The speaker said that trade unions from her country would do their best to share their views and experiences with the Government of Japan and she hoped that, in the spirit of tripartism, employers and workers would participate as well. Japan was a rich country with an extremely hard-working workforce. The workers and their families deserved their share of the profits earned through well-developed social reforms and the Government had no reason not to bring its legislation on the present issues into compliance with the Convention.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for their comments and made a number of further remarks in order to avoid any misunderstanding. With regard to the coverage of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, he indicated that no difference was made between regular workers and part-time workers. Secondly, as indicated by the Worker member of Japan, he emphasized the importance of the new draft legislation before the Diet. Once this draft legislation had been enacted, fixed-term workers, who were not currently covered by the Act, would be entitled to childcare leave and family care leave. Thirdly, with regard to workers in the public sector in this respect, the Government had already started preparing to take appropriate measures so that the public sector would not be left behind. He also recalled that the revised Childcare and Family Care Leave Act called upon employers to give consideration to workers with family responsibilities in the case of job relocation to remote workplaces and that the Government was endeavouring to secure the effective application of this provision. Once the draft legislation had been enacted, the Government would ensure that the new measures were widely known and firmly established. In addition, the Government intended to work together with employers' and workers' representatives to promote further measures to support the harmonization of working and family lives and would keep the ILO informed of all appropriate developments.

The Worker members, after taking careful account of the information provided by the Government representative, called for a thorough assessment by the Committee of Experts of the conformity with the Convention of the new legislative measures, which had been adopted following consultation with the social partners. However, even after the explanations provided by the Government representative, they feared that many types of workers were still not adequately covered, including temporary workers. Moreover, it was still unsure whether action had been taken to prevent the imposition of overtime under threat of the loss of a worker's job. In view of the sharp decline in the birth rate, they believed that the Government should be encouraging workers to have bigger families. They recalled that the need to work long hours meant that workers were not available to fulfil their family responsibilities. In conclusion, the Worker members hoped that social dialogue would be continued with a view to developing measures to cover all the points raised by the Japanese trade unions and that the Government would take inspiration from other countries which were more advanced in this respect with a view to improving the situation of workers with family responsibilities.

The Employer members, referring to the intervention by the Worker member of Norway, called upon the members of the Committee to confine their comments to the individual cases under examination. They added that the definition of the scope of application of the Convention contained in the observation of the Committee of Experts was merely its own interpretation, rather than the textual meaning of the Convention. In view of the lengthy discussion of the case and the legislative changes announced by the Government representative, as well as the measures to be adopted, they called upon the Government to keep the ILO informed of all relevant developments.

The Worker members noted that the conclusions proposed by the Committee did not cover the aspect of workers with family responsibilities being forced to work overtime hours under threat of dismissal if they did not do so. They recalled that it was the primary responsibility of the State to regulate working conditions, including working time issues, and that if workers were forced to work overtime hours they would have less time available to fulfil their family responsibilities. It was an important aspect of decent work that workers should not be subject to unreasonable demands on their working time, particularly in the case of workers with family responsibilities.

The Employer members noted that such detailed prescriptions as those relating to overtime hours could not be inferred from the text of the Convention. These were issues that had to be regulated by national labour legislation. As the Conference Committee was not in possession of the necessary detailed information on the situation of Japanese labour legislation on this point, it was not appropriate to cover this matter in its conclusions.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the ensuing discussion. It noted the detailed information provided by the Government representative concerning the application of the Convention. It welcomed the efforts made in the public sector to extend childcare and nursing leave and the efforts to support employers in the private sector. It also noted the Government's willingness to harmonize work and family responsibilities and to engage in tripartite consultations on these matters. The Committee noted with concern that despite the legislation and guidelines that were in force, transfers appeared to continue to be imposed on workers without taking into consideration their family responsibilities. It therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review such practices in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention. It should be ensured that appropriate weight was given to the family responsibilities of workers in transfer decisions. With regard to protection against termination of employment due to family responsibilities, the Government should examine whether the current legislation provided an appropriate basis for the prevention of and protection against such discrimination in practice in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee also called upon the Government to endeavour to identify means of ensuring the application of the Convention to all categories of workers, including fixed-term, wage-based and part-time workers. The Government was requested to provide information in its next report on these matters as well as those raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee hoped that the Government would adopt the draft legislation that was currently under discussion and that it would cover the points raised, including the measures taken for childcare and the right to nursing leave. The Government should continue its dialogue with the social partners on these matters. Finally, the Committee was bound to emphasize the importance of addressing the situation of men and women workers with family responsibilities in order to make further progress in achieving equality of opportunity and treatment in employment.

The Worker members noted that the conclusions proposed by the Committee did not cover the aspect of workers with family responsibilities being forced to work overtime hours under threat of dismissal if they did not do so. They recalled that it was the primary responsibility of the State to regulate working conditions, including working time issues, and that if workers were forced to work overtime hours they would have less time available to fulfil their family responsibilities. It was an important aspect of decent work that workers should not be subject to unreasonable demands on their working time, particularly in the case of workers with family responsibilities.

The Employer members noted that such detailed prescriptions as those relating to overtime hours could not be inferred from the text of the Convention. These were issues that had to be regulated by national labour legislation. As the Conference Committee was not in possession of the necessary detailed information on the situation of Japanese labour legislation on this point, it was not appropriate to cover this matter in its conclusions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report and received on 13 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN).

Article 4 of the Convention. Transfer to remote places. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to monitor effectively transfer practices, including information on the measures taken to supervise the application of section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law that requires employers to take into account family responsibilities when reassigning workers to remote places to ease the difficulty for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities.The Government indicates, in its report, that the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (MHLW) established a working group to draft “the Points of Employment Management Concerning Relocation” report in January 2017. This report aims to collect information on the manner in which companies deal with the relocation issues and its impact on the realization of the objective of work-life balance. The Government also indicates that there are no statistical information on practices of relocation disaggregated by sex. However, in 2017, eight requests for assistance over transfers were made based on section 52-4 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, which provides that the Director of the Prefecture Labour Bureau may provide necessary advice or guidance in order to resolve disputes. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that, all measures compatibles with national conditions and possibilities shall be taken with a view to creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment to enable workers with family responsibilities – men and women - to exercise their right to free choice of employment. Consequently, once again, it wishes to stress the impact of such transfers on employees with family responsibilities, as they can make it difficult for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the conclusions reached by the above-mentioned working group established by the MHLW and the measures taken following the publication of its report in terms of transfer practices. The Committee also encourages the Government to compile statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the impact of transfer practices on the needs of workers with family responsibilities and to communicate any studies on the subject.

Article 6. Education on sharing of family responsibilities. Concerning the actions taken to promote greater awareness, public understanding and a climate conducive to overcoming existing difficulties for men and women workers with family responsibilities, including stereotyping with respect to family responsibilities, the Government indicates that the MHLW has prepared a manual for the formulation of "the Support Plan for Return from Childcare Leave" and another manual for the formulation of "Family Care Support Plan”. This is part of a campaign to raise awareness of employers, workers and the public at large on the difficulties encountered by workers with family responsibilities to balance work and life responsibilities to engender a climate of opinion conducive to overcoming these difficulties. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on awareness raising and educational activities taken or envisaged to enable a better understanding of employers and workers, and society in general, of the needs of workers with family responsibilities, both men and women. Please also provide information on any specific activities undertaken toward this end, with the active participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and the results achieved in terms of applying the provisions of this Convention, as well as the way workers’ and employers’ organizations are fully integrated into the development, monitoring and updating of work–family balance measures.

Article 8. Termination of employment. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act prohibiting dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment that may occur because of change in family responsibilities. The Government indicates that, if the MHLW finds that disadvantageous treatment was applied, strict guidance is provided to correct such a treatment and that, in 2017, the number of workers who consulted the Prefectural Labour Bureaus because of disadvantageous treatment on the ground of pregnancy, childbirth, childcare leave, reached 10,969. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to prevent disadvantageous treatment or termination of employment from occurring on the ground of family responsibilities. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any cases relating to the dismissal of workers on the ground of family responsibilities disaggregated by sex dealt with by the competent authorities and the related remedies.

The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its general observation adopted in 2019, recalling the relevance, importance and practical usefulness of the principles laid down in the Convention, and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165), whose aim is to ensure that all workers with family responsibilities – women as well as men – are not disadvantaged in relation to other workers and, in particular, that women with family responsibilities are not disadvantaged in comparison to men with family responsibilities. Recalling the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work’s aim to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stressing the importance of the Convention in achieving this goal, the Committee called for member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations, to strengthen efforts towards specific goals.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Special measures to address the impact of COVID-19. In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that a special financial subsidy was put in place to support work and family-life balance in response to COVID-19, particularly applicable to workers affected by school closures. The subsidy is provided when employers allow workers who are guardians of children to take paid leave (excluding statutory annual paid leave) during the temporary closure of elementary schools or other facilities. According to the Government, from April 2020 onwards, an amount equivalent to the regular wages paid to the workers, up to 15,000 Yen (US$ 142) a day, is provided to small and medium enterprises SMEs. Moreover, workers in SMEs are also entitled to paid leave for family care. According to the Government if the total number of days of leave taken by a worker - who needs to take care of his/her family - is of 5 or more but less than 10, an amount of 200,000 Yen (US$ 1890) will be provided, while 350,000 Yen (US$ 3310) will be provided if the total number of days of leave taken per worker is 10 or more. The Committee notes that this measure is applicable for leave taken between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN) received on 29 August 2019.

Article 2 of the Convention. Application to all categories of workers. Non-regular employees. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to step up its efforts to ensure the effective application of the Convention to non-regular employees, such as fixed-term contract, part-time and dispatched workers in both the private and public sectors. The Government indicates in its report that, the Childcare Leave, Caregiver Leave, and Other Measures for the Welfare of Workers Caring for Children or Other Family Members Act (Childcare and Family Care Leave Act) was amended by Law No.14 of 2017. The amendments allow fixed-term employees to take childcare leave, provided that: (1) the employee has been employed by the same employer continuously for a year or longer at the time of submitting the request for child care leave; and (2) it is unclear whether the employment contract (or the renewed employment contract) will end/expire before the child reaches one year and six months of age. The amendments also allow fixed-term employees to take family care leave, on condition that: (1) the employee has been employed by the same employer continuously for a year or longer, at the time of submitting the request for family care leave; and (2) it is unclear whether the employment contract (or the renewed employment contract) will end/expire six months after the expiration of 93 days from the starting date of the caregiver leave.

According to the Government, a leaflet entitled “Fixed-term Employees who are Eligible for Childcare and Family Care Leave” has been prepared in 2018, as part of the awareness raising campaign on the 2017 amendments. As regards statistical information, the Government indicates that: (1) there is no statistical information on the rate of family leave taken by fixed term workers; (2) the rate of childcare leave taken in 2017 by fixed-term workers was 7.5 per cent for male and 93 per cent for female workers; (3) in 2017, 242 part-time public service workers at the national level took childcare leave, including seven male and 234 female workers; (4) in the same year, 36 part-time public service workers took family leave (4 male and 32 female employees).

The Committee notes the observations of JTUC-RENGO stating that: (1) among women who were in a regular employment relationship prior to pregnancy, only 62.2 per cent are still in a regular employment relationship by the time their first child has reached the age of one and that the proportion of these women who took childcare was 54.7 per cent; and that (2) during the debate leading up to the 2017 amendments, JTUC-RENGO submitted that the conditions placed on taking leave for workers on fixed-term contracts should be abolished, and as a result, some of them (such as the need to show the probability of renewing the employment contract) were relaxed.

The Committee welcomes the legislative efforts undertaken by the Government to enhance the application of the Convention to all workers irrespective of their contractual status. However, it notes from the above statistical information that the rate at which childcare leave taken in 2017 by fixed-term workers is significantly disproportionate between men and women and between regular and non-regular workers. Recalling that the Convention applies to all categories of workers and all branches of economic activity, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the Convention applies in practice to all categories of workers, in particular to non-regular employees and to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and their impact. The Committee also asks the Government to take the necessary measures to raise awareness among fixed-term workers about the 2017 amendments of the Childcare and Family Leave Act. Lastly, it asks the Government to continue to provide statistical information disaggregated by sex on the number of non-regular workers requesting and receiving childcare and family care leave in the private and public sectors.

Article 4(a). Organization of work. Long working hours. The Committee previously asked the Government to step up its efforts to reduce annual working hours in order to enable men and women with family responsibilities to enter and remain in the labour market. The Committee notes with interest the adoption in 2018 of the “Work Style Reform legislation” which bundles together amendments to eight laws, including the Employment Measures Act No.132 of 1966, the Labour Standards Act No.49 of 1947, and the Working Hours Arrangements Improvement Act No. 90 of 1992 to tackle inter alia the “karoshi” (death by overwork) phenomenon. The Act requires employers to implement specific measures to limit employees’ working hours, to ensure that employees take annual leave, and thus create a healthier and more flexible work environment. Concerning overtime, the new law contains among other measures, two rules that set maximum limits on overtime hours: (1) the Basic Limit Rule, which says that overtime hours cannot exceed 45 hours per month or 360 hours per year; and (2) the Extended Limit Rule, which allows employers to extend the basic limit under special circumstances (e.g. an exceptionally busy period, and an unexpected volume of customer complaints or a sudden change in product expectations). The extended limit cannot exceed 100 hours per month and 720 hours per year; and employees may not work, on average, more than 80 hours of overtime per month. The number of months in which the worker works over the Basic Limit cannot exceed six months in a year. Firms that violate these limits face a penalty of up to JPY300 000 (US$2,660) per worker. The Committee notes that highly skilled professional workers may be exempt from the new overtime provisions, and that, because labour shortage in Japan is more severe in certain sectors than in others, the following occupations will be exempt from this law for five years: car drivers, construction workers, doctors, and employees engaged in the research and development of new technology. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) has set different compliance deadlines ranging from April 1, 2019 to April 1, 2023 for different requirements of the Act to give employers sufficient time to amend their work rules and put compliance mechanisms in place depending on the size of the company. In addition to overtime work limits, the Act requires workers who are entitled to at least 10 days of annual leave to take at least five of these days each year. If an employee does not voluntarily choose to use these days, it becomes the employer’s responsibility to designate the timing in which the leave must be taken. Moreover, the Guidelines for Review of Working Hours (Guidelines for Improvement of Working Hours Arrangement) were revised to encourage the introduction of the interval system between shifts in response to enforcement of the “Work Style Reform Legislation”.

The Committee notes the observations of NIPPON KEIDANREN indicating that the limit of overtime work has been agreed with the trade unions and awareness measures have been taken to promote the take up of paid leave and compliance with the revised laws on working hours. The Government further indicates that in 2017, inspections were carried out to 25,676 workplaces, and among them 11,592 workplaces received guidance for correction and improvement of illegal overtime work.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to change Japan’s long working-hour culture, which is a major obstacle to the effective implementation of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to take proactive measures to ensure the effective application of the “Work Style Reform Legislation” to all workers. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to: (i) strictly enforce overtime work limits introduced in 2019-20; (ii) closely monitor the scheme that exempts skilled professional workers from overtime regulation to avoid excessive working hours; and (iii) introduce a minimum limit on the interval of time between the end of one work day and the beginning of the next work day. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information on the number of cases where penalties have been imposed on companies that do not comply with the maximum limits on overtime hours as well as the number of workers affected by the violations, and the amount of penalties imposed.

Articles 4(b) and 5. Childcare and family leave and facilities. The Committee notes that the 2017 legislative amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act have also introduced a set of new leave entitlements for both regular and non-regular workers. The latter are now entitled to request an extension of the period of childcare leave until the child reaches two years of age, if the child cannot attend kindergarten. In this regard, a series of initiatives to improve the childcare leave take-up by male workers have been taken, including: (1) the development of a system in which male workers are able to take childcare leave again in cases where they had taken it within eight weeks from the childbirth; (2) the possibility of using the family care leave in a whole or up to three different periods, and (3) the provision of subsidies for companies that encourage male workers to take childcare leave. The Government indicates that, in 2017 the percentage rate of workers who took childcare leave reached 5.14 per cent for male workers, and 83.2 per cent for female workers; whereas, in 2014, this rate was 5.2 per cent and 25.3 per cent respectively. In 2014, the rate of workers who used family care leave reached 1.2 per cent for female workers and 1.1 per cent for male workers; whereas this rate was 2.4 per cent and 3.1 per cent respectively in 2017. Moreover, the number of local public service employees in full-time work who took childcare leave in 2017 was 46,207 (2,750 male and 43,457 female employees), while the number of those who took family care leave in the same year was 2,816 (819 male and 1,997 female employees). The Committee notes that in its observations, JTUC–RENGO expressed concern about the fact that the vast majority of workers who take childcare leave are women and that, such a situation will lead to a reversal of promotion of women’s participation. It adds that there is still only a small proportion of men taking childcare leave compared to women, with a rate of 82.2 per cent for women compared to 6.16 per cent for men. This is mainly due to the issue of the number of children waiting to enter authorized day care facilities. JTUC–RENGO indicates that despite the government’s plans to expand childcare facilities: in April 2018, 19,895 children were on waiting lists for nursery centres [….]. The major cause of such a situation is the shortage of childcare and nursing workers and their level of remuneration which is lower than the average remuneration for workers in other sectors (around 110,000 yen (US$900) per month). Although an increase to 3,000 yen (US$2,000) per month was decided in April 2019 following the adoption of the New Economic Policy Package (“the Package”), such a measure is not going to be sufficient to eliminate disparity in wages. JTUC-RENGO recalls that, the Government is required to implement effective policies to quickly resolve the issue of children on day care waiting lists and promote the use of childcare leave by men by providing sufficient quality nursery centres. Referring to the 2017 Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ Employment Status Survey, JTUC-RENGO states that 3 million out of the 59.21 million employees in Japan engage in nursing care while working. Of those people, men account for 1.27 million, whereas women account for 1.73 million. Regarding family leave services, JTUC–RENGO expresses the view that, to respond to the needs of an extremely aging population, it is important to balance both work and nursing care and expand leave and time off for nursing care.

In its reply, the Government indicates that it has adopted a number of measures to enhance the establishment of childcare facilities, among them the adoption of: (1) the “New Economic Policy Package” aiming at encouraging people who are engaging in nursing care activities through a pay rise equivalent to 3,000 yen per month; (2) the implementation of the “Acceleration Plan for Elimination of Waiting Children“ under which 535,000 childcare facilities were created in 2017; (3) the ”Plan for Raising Children with Peace of Mind“ adopted in June 2017, under which 320,000 childcare facilities are going to be created by the end of 2020; and (4) the “Comprehensive After-school Plan for Children“ which aims at creating additional capacity for about 250,000 children for the period of 2019 to 2021. According to the Government, as of April 2018, 27,916 childcare places were created, and 2,505 children were enrolled. Moreover, in order to enhance the after-school facilities, additional capacity for about 300,000 children spaces will be secured by the end of 2023.

In light of the above, the Committee welcomes the Government’s effort to promote greater work-life balance by expanding the leave entitlements to both regular and non-regular workers and enabling a better share of parental leave and family leave, particularly for men. However, it notes that, in practice: (i) women end up taking the majority of these leaves; (ii) a majority of women withdraw from the labour market after the birth of their first child; and (iii) women only enter the labour market once their children have grown up and the burden of bringing up children is reduced, and often then only as non-regular workers in order to be able to take care of ageing parents. Further, the Committee notes that, although the Government had promised to eliminate the lengthy waiting lists for authorized day care centres by 2018, it had to postpone the achievement of this goal to March 2021, and notes that it is a phenomenon compounded by the shortage of childcare workers and the cost of such services. In this regard, it recalls that the lack of quality, affordable care services has been identified by both men and women as one of the biggest challenges for women with family responsibilities who are in paid work, as well as the inflexibility of the hours of care of these services. Referring to its 2019 General Observation, the Committee wishes to highlight that it is essential that workers with family responsibilities have access to child and family care facilities meeting the needs of children of different ages, after school care, care for the disabled, and elderly care, that are affordable, accessible to their home and work, responsive to working hours, and provide quality care. The Committee therefore urges the Government to continue to take proactive measures to address effectively: (i) issues that discourage the employment of women; (ii) gender stereotypes, so that more men are encouraged to effectively avail themselves of the new childcare and family care leaves; and (iii) the lack of opportunities/incentives for women to join and remain in the labour market. It also requests the Government to report on the progress made towards reaching the objective of the elimination of waiting lists to facilitate the enrolment of children in day care centres by March 2021 and the measures taken to extend coverage of care services and facilities for other dependent members of the family, as well as the results achieved. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information, disaggregated by sex and categories of workers (regular, non-regular) on the extent to which men and women workers make use of the leave entitlements following the amendments of the relevant provisions of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act No.14.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) which were annexed to the Government’s report received on 28 October 2016. It further notes the observations of the Japanese Federation of Co-op Labour Unions (SEIKYO–ROREN) received on 24 May 2016.

Article 4 of the Convention. Leave entitlements. Transfer to remote places. The Committee recalls that for many years concerns have been raised over the impact of transfers on employees with family responsibilities and that a number of measures have been taken to address this issue. It recalls that section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law requires employers to take into account family responsibilities when reassigning workers to such places, which would make it difficult for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities. It also recalls that the Guidelines for measures taken to keep work–life balance (Guidelines No. 509 of 2009) call for employers to assess the situation of the workers, take into consideration the intention of the workers, and confirm whether there is alternative care of children or family members in the relocation site. The Government indicates in its report that section 52-4 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law provides that the Director of the Prefecture Labour Bureau may provide necessary advice or guidance in order to resolve disputes, and that in 2014, ten requests for assistance of dispute resolution over transfers were received. The Committee also welcomes the consensus reached by the Government and representatives of employers and employees, in their specifications of unlawful indirect discrimination, that transfers cannot be a requirement of recruitment, employment, promotion or change in job type without reasonable grounds. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to monitor effectively and review transfer practices, including information on the measures taken to supervise the application of section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law and the expanded scope of unlawful indirect discrimination. The Government is also asked to provide statistics on the transfer practices, disaggregated by sex, and on any disputes and decisions resolving such disputes.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. The Committee notes the detailed information on the Government’s initiatives to increase the capacity of childcare facilities, including preschool and after school facilities. It notes that it has increased the target for more child-rearing services from 400,000 to 500,000 by the end of 2017. It further notes that it is taking into account the increasingly diverse needs of parents and guardians, and has adopted a new system in 2015 to provide education and childcare for preschool children. The Committee notes that based on 2015 data, the number of day care centre places and the number of enrolled students has increased since 2010, and that the number of early childhood education and care places has substantially increased since 2011. The Committee further notes the creation of the services provided under the Comprehensive Support for Social and Daily Living of Persons with Disabilities Law 2013, including home help service, day service and short stay service, and other services targeted at assisting children with disabilities. The Committee also notes the increase in care facilities provided for the elderly including both home help service and nursing care facilities. The Committee notes the observation by JTUC–RENGO that in part due to the Government’s “Dynamic Engagement of All Citizens” plan of 2015, increasing the number of facilities for both child rearing and family care has been accelerated and expanded. Nevertheless, it indicates that the demand continues to exceed the supply with 23,167 children seeking places in childcare facilities as of April 2015. Noting that under the Government’s “Dynamic Engagement of All Citizens” Plan of 2016 an extra 2 per cent was to be allocated to the salaries of care workers as well and an extra amount per month to childcare workers, JTUC–RENGO emphasized the need for drastic improvements to be made in order to address the shortage of human resources and underpayment of those working in the childcare and other care fields including disability service workers. The Committee notes that SEIKYO–ROREN raised concerns over the demand exceeding the supply of services as well as over the poor quality of some of the childcare and family care services. Taking into account the continuing demand for childcare and family services, the concerns of JTUC–RENGO as regards human resources, and the policy efforts to increase women’s participation in the labour market and enhance the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, the Committee hopes the Government will step up its efforts to provide adequate quality childcare and family services. The Government is also asked to continue to provide information on the number and activities of childcare and family services and facilities, and the progress made in meeting the growing demand.

Article 6. Education on sharing of family responsibilities. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that greater attention is being given in law and policy-making on the importance of workers being able to reconcile work and family responsibilities. It notes that efforts have been made to introduce to the public as well as to employers and workers the amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, which further encourages employers to establish working environments and work organization to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family. The Committee further notes that greater focus is being placed on encouraging male employees to take childcare leave and to participate more in child rearing, and that the “IKU-men Project” continues to advocate and create public awareness to support men’s role in care giving. JTUC–RENGO observes that to effectively promote child-rearing among men, it is indispensable that in workplaces understanding is being shown, that work environments improve and that awareness on the gender division of labour is cultivated and addressed by both men and women. The Committee further notes that one of the goals of the Law on the Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace is to respect a woman’s choice with regard to the manner in which she wants to balance work and family responsibilities. The Committee notes that according to SEIKYO–ROREN women with childcare responsibilities feel they are a burden on other workers and that they cannot avail themselves of the childcare systems due to the long working hours, lack of understanding from men workers or the lack of such a system for part-time workers. The Committee recalls that the Convention and the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), place the matter of equality of opportunity for workers with family responsibilities within the wider framework of measures to promote equality between the sexes (General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, paragraph 58). Therefore, in promoting the implementation of national laws and policies directed at harmonizing work and family life, the Committee urges the Government to undertake education and awareness raising activities directed at employers, workers and the public at large that address existing attitudes based on gender stereotypes of traditional gender roles of men and women within the context of promoting the achievement of equal employment opportunity between men and women. It asks the Government to provide information on the number and content of educational and awareness raising measures and their impact on improving the ability of both men and women to exercise their right in practice to reconcile work and family without discrimination.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) which were annexed to the Government’s report received on 28 October 2016. It further notes the observations of the Japanese Federation of Co-op Labour Unions (SEIKYO–ROREN) received on 24 May 2016.

Article 3 of the Convention. National policy. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of a new Act on Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace (Act No. 64 of 2015) which came into force on 1 April 2016 and which aims to promote the advancement of women by providing an environment that makes it possible for men and women to balance their work and family life, and that calls for respect of women’s choice with regard to work and family life balance. The Act calls on national and local government agencies and private sector employers with over 300 employees: to collect and analyse data on the ratio of women and men within the enterprise in relation to various matters including taking childcare leave and family leave; and, to formulate and announce enterprise level action plans containing quantitative targets and actions to achieve the targets within specified timeframes. The Committee notes that the Act is implemented through voluntary compliance, without requirements for labour–management dialogue, and that the setting of goals and targets is left to the discretion of each company. In this regard, the Committee notes from the summary of the White Paper on Gender Equality 2017 issued by the Cabinet Office of the Government in June 2017, that pursuant to this Law, a number of action plans in both the public and private sectors contain targets for male employees taking childcare leave.

The Committee also notes the legislative amendments made to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act to provide clarification and extend entitlements to give further effect to the Convention in a number of areas, including the extension to cover custodial and foster parents and encouraging men to take childcare leave. The Committee also notes the implementation of the Charter for Work–Life Balance, the Action Policy for Promotion of Work Life Balance, the revised Japan Revitalization Strategy of 2015, the Dynamic Engagement of All Citizens plans of 2015 and 2016 and the Guidelines for initiatives to promote active participation of female national public officers and work–life balance of 2014. While welcoming the enhanced policy emphasis on promoting work and family balance for workers, the Committee notes the observations of SEIKYO–ROREN underlining that in practice the application of the policy is frustrated by the reality of the long working hours of workers, in particular of men. It also notes the comments of the JTUC–RENGO and SEIKYO–ROREN on the restricted access of non-regular workers to the childcare and family leave provisions and support measures. The Committee refers to these points in more detail below. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act and on the Act on Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace, as well as the legislation concerning childcare and family care leave for national and local public employees. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the contents of the various policy measures taken and the manner in which they are promoted, implemented and reviewed in relation to their objectives.

Articles 1 and 2. Application to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning the restricted application of the Convention to non-regular workers. It recalls that sections 5 and 11 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act enable fixed-term workers to take childcare leave and family care leave only if they meet certain requirements, and that the guidelines concerning measures to be taken by employers to facilitate the balance between work and family life of workers who care for children or other family members (Guidelines No. 509 of 2009) provide guidance as to who could fulfil these requirements. The Committee notes that following revision of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act limiting requirements remain. It further notes that under the laws concerning childcare and family leave for national and local public service employment, childcare and other support measures are available to part-time workers, but limited to younger children when compared to entitlements of full-time employees. The Committee notes the observations of JTUC–RENGO that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act continues to place conditions on fixed-term workers that essentially limit their ability to take such leave, citing a recent study which showed that the percentage of part-time and dispatched workers who take childcare leave and continue their employment is 4 per cent, as compared to 43.1 per cent for regular workers. It also notes the views of SEIKYO–ROREN concerning the lack of equal and balanced treatment of part-time workers as compared to regular employees and the negative impact this has particularly on women, who bear the largest burden of family responsibilities. The Government indicates in its report that guidance on leave of fixed-term employees was required to be provided in two cases in which corrections were made. It also indicates that information on the childcare system has been promoted particularly among fixed-term workers to facilitate their understanding and use of it. The Committee considers that fixed-term workers continue to be placed in a vulnerable position in claiming entitlements that facilitate the reconciliation between work and family responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the effective application of the Convention to non-regular employees including those in fixed-term and part-time positions in both the private and public sectors. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on any reviews undertaken on the use by fixed-term and part-time employees of childcare and family care leave, any obstacles encountered and any follow-up measures taken to facilitate an improved application of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law. The Government is also asked to provide statistical information disaggregated by sex on the number of fixed-term workers requesting and receiving childcare and family care leave in the private and public sectors.

Article 4. Organization of work and leave entitlements. The Committee notes the praise by JTUC–RENGO of the 2016 revision of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act for providing for segmented-family care leave, new exemptions from extra working hours, the relaxing of conditions for fixed-term contract workers taking childcare and other types of leave, and the implementation of regulations preventing workers from creating a toxic working environment when others take maternity, childbirth, child raising and other types of leave. The Committee notes from the 2014 Basic Survey of Gender Equality in Employment Management that the percentage of employees who took childcare leave was 2.3 per cent of male employees and 86.6 per cent of female employees, and that the percentage of employees who took time off for sick or injured children was 5.2 per cent of male employees and 25.3 per cent of female employees. Further, according to the 2012 Basic Survey of Employment Structure the number of employees who used the family care leave system was 3.5 per cent of men and 2.9 per cent of women. While noting the revision of the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act the Committee notes the low use of leave of care for sick and injured children by men. Noting the low usage of the family leave by both men and women and the low use of childcare leave by men, the Committee asks the Government to take measures to ensure that both men and women are able in practice to take the leave provided in the legislation, and are encouraged to better balance the leave take-up between men and women. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide statistics on the types of leave taken, disaggregated by sex.

Long working hours. The Committee has previously noted the importance of the overall reduction of working hours in order to enable men and women with family responsibilities to enter and remain in the labour market, and recalls that Paragraph 18 of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), emphasizes the importance of the progressive reduction of daily hours of work and the reduction of overtime. In their observation, SEIKYO–ROREN indicates the difficulty of reconciling work and family given the reality of long working hours, pointing out that men only have on average 67 minutes to perform family responsibilities including 39 minutes for childcare. In their view the law should be revised to shorten the hours of work, and there should be an increase in premium pay for overtime work. The Committee notes the observations by the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN) submitted under the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), advocating for a reduction in hours of work, because in reality the long hours of regular employment make it hard for women to take up such employment and take care of family responsibilities.

The Committee notes that pursuant to Rule 10-11 of the National Personnel Authority several measures have been taken and are under development for national public employees in regular service to exempt or limit overwork of employees who are taking care of a child or other family members. It further notes that several ordinances have been drafted to permit requests for exemptions from certain hours of work for caregivers. The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government that while overall average hours of work have been reducing since 2008, that is mostly accounted for by a decrease in the hours of part-time workers, and that as of 2015 the hours of regular workers remained around 2,000 hours, the same amount as indicated in the Government’s previous report. The Committee also notes the high number of violations related to working time (27,581) under section 32 of the Labour Standards Act.

The Committee asks the Government to step up its efforts to reduce annual working hours and to provide information on any measures under discussion to reduce hours of work or limit overtime in the private sector. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical implementation of the Labour Standards Act with respect to working hours and the Act on Special Measures for Improving Working Time Arrangements and Guidelines No. 108 of 2008 with respect to reconciling work and family responsibilities. The Government is also asked to continue to provide statistics on inspections and violations, and trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women disaggregated by contractual status and full- and part-time employment.

Article 8. Termination of employment. The Committee recalls its previous comments and the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards concerning the adequacy of the measures to prevent and protect against discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities. The Committee notes that based on a Supreme Court judgment made in 2014, there was a notice of partial revision of the enforcement of the revised Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Child Care and Family Care Act issued in 2015 (Notice No. 1 of 23 January 2015) to clarify that it is up to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to determine cases and provide guidance if disadvantageous treatment is found to occur within one year of the relevant event (childbirth, among other things). The Government indicates that it has informed workers and employers about the contents of this Notice. The Committee notes that in 2014 the number of consultations from workers regarding disadvantageous treatment by reason of pregnancy, childbirth, childcare leave, and so forth, submitted to the Prefectural Labour Bureau was 3,591, and that this number has been increasing year by year. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the relevant sections of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act prohibiting dismissal or otherwise disadvantageous treatment, including information on administrative consultations and judicial decisions relating to these provisions and their outcome. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate any other measures taken to ensure that Article 8 of the Convention is fully applied in law and in practice.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the communication from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) dated 29 August 2011, which was attached to the Government’s report, and to which the Government replied.

Article 3 of the Convention. National policy. The Committee notes that the Law on Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation (Law No. 120 of 2003) was revised in 2008, to expand the scope of employers who are obliged to formulate an action plan concerning measures to support the development of the next generation undertakings employing more than 100 employees (section 12). The Committee also notes that in the context of a Cabinet decision on the “Strategy for the Rebirth of Japan” in July 2012, promotion of women’s active participation in the labour force constitutes one of the objectives in the area of employment and welfare. This Strategy set as goals to be achieved by 2020 to increase: (i) the employment rate of women aged from 25–44 to 73 per cent; (ii) the rate of mothers returning to work after birth of the first child to 55 per cent; and (iii) the rate of men taking childcare leave to 13 per cent. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that as of the end of March 2011, the number of enterprises that had formulated action plans was 58,744, and that the measures contained in these plans include promotion of taking childcare leave by fathers, introduction of the short working hour system or a “no-overtime work day”. Furthermore, the “Public–Private Top Committee concerning the Promotion of Harmonizing Work with Childcare”, which is composed of employers, workers, local governments and related ministers, drew up a new “Charter on Work–Life Balance” and an “Action Guideline on Promoting Work–Life Balance” in June 2010. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Law on Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation, including information on the extent to which enterprises are adopting action plans with a view to facilitating the harmonization of work and family responsibilities, and on the kind of measures that are contained in these plans. It also asks the Government to indicate the impact of the new “Strategy for the Rebirth of Japan”, the “Charter on Work–Life Balance” and the “Action Guideline on Promoting Work–Life Balance” on the application of the Convention.

Article 4. Leave entitlements. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government concerning the number of men and women exercising entitlements under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law and the legislation concerning childcare leave and family care leave for national and local public employees. It also notes the observation by the JTUC–RENGO that the benefits provided from unemployment insurance during the period of childcare leave and family care leave should be raised to 60 per cent, instead of 50 per cent of a worker’s salary for childcare leave and 40 per cent of a worker’s salary for family care leave. The Government replies in its report that the primary beneficiaries of the unemployment insurance are the unemployed, therefore it is not feasible to give a higher rate of benefits to those who take childcare leave or family care leave than the basic allowances of 50–80 per cent for the unemployed. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any research or studies conducted concerning the rate of benefits for workers with family responsibilities. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on leave entitlements in practice, such as statistical information disaggregated by sex on the number of beneficiaries of such entitlements.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the number of facilities provided by family support centres, day-care centres for children, nursing care centres and services for elderly people and persons with disabilities. The Committee also notes that under the “Vision for children and childcare” formulated in January 2010, the goal was set to increase the capacity of child day-care centres from 2.15 million in the fiscal year 2009 to 2.41 million in the fiscal year 2014. The Government also indicates that subsidies have been provided to employers who have introduced nursery facilities within their offices for their workers, and that in the fiscal year 2010, 637 municipalities operated family support centres, which coordinated between the workers who needed childcare services and the providers of such services. In this connection, the Committee notes the observation by the JTUC–RENGO citing the press statement of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, that as of October 2010, 48,356 children were still waiting to be accepted in the childcare centres. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number and contents of childcare and family services and facilities, including the measures taken by local authorities and private and public sector employers to develop childcare services and facilities open to all workers with family responsibilities, with a view to reducing the number of children waiting to be accepted in the childcare centres.

Article 6. Education on sharing of family responsibilities. The Committee recalls its previous comments encouraging the Government to intensify its efforts to promote the sharing of family responsibilities between men and women, as envisaged in the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165). The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government, indicating that 1.72 per cent of male workers and 85.6 per cent of female workers took childcare leave. The Committee also notes the statistical information on the number of workers in the public sector who took reduced working hours, childcare hours during working days, and childcare leave, which indicates that 1.6 per cent of male workers and 95.3 per cent of female workers at the national level, as well as 0.7 per cent of male workers and 93.9 per cent of female workers at the local level, took childcare leave during the period from April 2009 to March 2010. The Committee further notes that a project to promote the taking of childcare leave by men “Iku-men Project” has been implemented, including activities such as presenting on websites experiences of taking childcare leave and child rearing by fathers, holding symposia, and distributing leaflets. While noting these measures taken by the Government, the Committee observes that the number of male workers taking childcare leave remains very low. The Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts to address the underlying causes of the low participation by men in sharing family responsibilities, with a view to achieving measurable outcomes. It also asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the measures taken to promote the exercise of childcare leave particularly by men, including awareness-raising activities such as the “Iku-men Project”.

Parts III to V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the fiscal year 2010, pursuant to section 52-4 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, 275 requests for dispute resolution assistance were made to the Directors of the prefectural Labour Bureau of which 272 cases received assistance and 218 cases were resolved. During the same period, reconciliation process by the Work–Life Balance Conciliation Conference commenced in 15 cases pursuant to section 52-5 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, and recommendations were made in eight cases, of which four cases were settled due to the acceptance of the recommendations by both parties. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on any cases or disputes handled by the courts, the Directors of the prefectural Labour Bureau or the Work–Life Balance Conciliation Conference, involving the issues relating to workers with family responsibilities, as well as the results achieved.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee recalls the communication of the All Japan Construction, Traffic and Transportation Workers’ Union Tokyo dated 13 October 2009, and notes the communication from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) dated 29 August 2011, which was attached to the Government’s report. It also notes the Government’s reply to both of these communications.

Article 3 of the Convention. Legislative developments. The Committee notes with interest the legislative measures to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, in particular the amendments made by Law No. 65 of 1 July 2009 to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law. The new provisions: (i) require employers to establish a short working hour system or other alternative measures for workers raising children up to the age of 3 (section 23), and to offer exemption from overtime work when requested by a worker raising children up to the age of 3, provided that it does not prevent the normal course of business (section 16 8); (ii) allow a worker to take up to ten days of leave per year to take care of a sick or injured child, if the worker has two or more children of pre school age (sections 16-2 and 16-3); (iii) extend the period during which one year childcare leave may be taken until the child turns 1 year and two months old, if both a father and a mother take childcare leave; (iv) establish family care leave (five days per year for one family member, and ten days per year for two or more family members) (sections 16-5 and 16-6); and (v) establish the dispute resolution assistance system by the “Work-Life Balance Conciliation Conference”, if the Director of the prefectural Labour Bureau finds it necessary (sections 52-4 and 52-5). In addition, the legislation concerning childcare leave and family care leave for national public employees and local public employees was amended (last amended in December 2010) to provide as follows: (i) an employee whose spouse is taking childcare leave shall also be entitled to childcare leave, and an employee whose spouse can take care of their child shall also be entitled to early/late shift work and overtime work exemption; (ii) an employee who is taking care of a child under 3 years of age shall be entitled to an exemption from overtime work, unless it is extremely difficult to take measures to replace the worker; (iii) part-time employees shall be entitled to take childcare leave, if they meet certain requirements concerning working days; (iv) for national public employees, leave for taking care of a sick child is extended to ten days per year, if the employee has two or more children; and (v) part-time employees shall be entitled to take family care leave if they meet certain requirements concerning working days. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the revised Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, as well as the legislation concerning childcare and family care leave for national and local public employees. Please include relevant statistics disaggregated by sex on the number of workers with family responsibilities making use of the entitlements related to working time and leave.

Article 2. Application to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. The Committee recalls that sections 5 and 11 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law enable fixed-term workers to take childcare leave and family care leave if they meet certain requirements. The Committee notes the guidelines concerning measures to be taken by employers to facilitate the conciliation of work and family life of workers who care for children or other family members (Guidelines No. 509 of 2009) issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which, inter alia, provide guidance as to who could fulfil the requirements under sections 5 and 11 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, as well as who could be considered to be a “substantially non-fixed-term” worker, and therefore entitled to childcare and family care leave regardless of the requirements under these sections. As to the probability of continuing to be employed after the child turns 1 year of age, which is required under section 5 of the Law, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that an employee could show this probability when an indication is made in writing or orally upon the acceptance of the request for childcare or family care leave. In cases where there is no clear indication as to the probability of renewing the employment contracts, it will be determined based on actual situations, including the words and actions of employers about the prospect of continuous employment, the situation of other workers in a similar position, and the history of renewals of the worker’s previous labour contracts. While noting the Guidelines No. 509 of 2009 and the Government’s explanation regarding the probability of renewing employment contracts, the Committee still considers that fixed-term workers are in a vulnerable position in claiming entitlements pursuant to sections 5 and 11 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law. In this context, the Committee notes that the JTUC–RENGO reiterates its observation that requirements to be met by fixed-term workers for the benefits under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law should be relaxed. It also recalls the JTUC–RENGO’s previous observation that the childcare and family care leave system should be extended to fixed-term workers in the public sector, and notes that the Government has not provided any updated information in relation to this matter. The Committee further notes that, while the Government has published a leaflet on “Promoting the taking of childcare leave by fixed-term employees”, according to research studies conducted in the fiscal year 2009–10 on the use of such leave by fixed-term workers, 40 per cent of them were not aware of the availability of the leave system. The Committee asks the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the application of the Convention to fixed-term and part-time workers, including in the public sector, as well as to increase awareness of the availability of childcare and family care leave for fixed term workers. It also asks the Government to provide information on any obstacles encountered by fixed-term workers in order to show the probability of continuing to be employed, and the measures taken to remove such obstacles. Please provide up-to-date statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of requests for childcare and family care leave by fixed-term workers, and the number of cases where these entitlements have actually been granted to them.

Article 4. Transfer to remote workplaces. The Committee recalls that section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law requires taking into account family responsibilities when reassigning workers to such workplaces which would make it difficult for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities. The Committee notes that the Guidelines No. 509 of 2009 provide that considerations under section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law include: (i) identifying the worker’s situation of childcare or care for family members; (ii) taking into consideration the intentions of the worker concerned; and (iii) confirming the availability of any alternative means to care for a child or a family member in case the reassignment involves a change in his or her place of work (Part II, paragraph 14). The “Guidelines concerning Enlargement of Recruitment and Promotion of Female National Public Service Employees”, adopted in January 2011, also refers to the consideration to be given in making transfer orders for employees who are taking care of their children or family members. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that in the fiscal year 2010, 13 applications for resolution of disputes filed with the Directors of the prefectural Labour Bureau, and one application filed at the Work–Life Balance Conciliation Conference, related to transfer. The Government indicates that, according to the Employment Status Survey in the fiscal year 2007, 1.2 per cent of workers who left work did so due to transfer, transfer of family members, or relocation of offices, but no further information has been provided concerning the impact of transfer practices. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to monitor effectively and review transfer practices, including information on the measures taken to supervise the application of section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, and on any specific instances where guidance has been given by the competent authorities to resolve related difficulties. Please also provide statistics on the impact of transfer practices, disaggregated by sex, as well as the results of any survey undertaken in this regard both in the public and private sectors.

Reduction of working hours. The Committee previously noted the importance of the overall reduction of working hours in order to enable men and women with family responsibilities to enter and remain in the labour market, and recalls that paragraph 18 of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), emphasizes the importance of the progressive reduction of daily hours of work and the reduction of overtime. The Committee also recalls the observations of the All Japan Construction, Traffic and Transportation Workers’ Union Tokyo, drawing attention to the excessive working hours of bus drivers which impact on family responsibilities. With regard to the measures taken to promote the reduction of working hours, the Committee notes that the Guidelines concerning improvement of setting working hours (No. 108 of 2008) refer to reconciliation of work and family life. It also notes the Government’s indication that the amendment made to the Labour Standards Law, which became effective on 1 April 2010, and which raised the overtime wage rate, aims at reducing long working hours and realizing a society in which work and family responsibilities are balanced. The legislation concerning working hours of the national and local public employees was also amended effective on 1 April 2010, to raise the overtime wage rate. With regard to the private sector, the Government indicates that the average annual working hours have remained below 1,800 hours since the year 2008 and show a decreasing trend, although the average annual working hours for workers other than part-time workers have remained around 2,000 hours and have not yet been reduced. With regard to the working hours of bus drivers, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in addition to the “Standards for Improvement of Working hours, etc. for Drivers of Automobiles” which set the limit of working hours, the Labour Standards Inspection Offices have been securing full compliance with working conditions of drivers of automobiles as a major issue, and have been actively identifying problematic bus companies. Judicial action, including possible prosecution of the employers, has been taken in serious or malicious cases of long working hours. The Committee asks the Government to step up its effort to reduce annual working hours, and to provide information on the practical application of the Labour Standards Law and the legislation concerning public employees, with a view to reducing effectively the annual working hours and overtime work of both female and male workers with family responsibilities, including those who engage in the transportation sector. It also asks the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the Law on Special Measures for the Improvement of Working-Time Arrangements, and the Guidelines No. 108 of 2008 on reconciling work and family responsibilities. Please continue to provide information on the trends in the average number of hours worked by men and women, disaggregated by contractual status, and full-time and part-time workers.

Article 8. Termination of employment. The Committee recalls the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that the Government should examine whether the current legislation provides an appropriate basis for the prevention of and protection against discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities. The Committee notes that the protection against dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment has been expanded to cover leave for caring for a sick or injured child, family care leave, and persons benefitting from a restriction on overtime work or night work, and from a short working time (sections 16-4, 16-7, 16-9, 18-2, 20-2 and 23-2) and that the Guidelines No. 509 of 2009 further clarify the manner in which these sections of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law should be interpreted (Part II, paragraph 11). The Committee also notes the observation of the JTUC–RENGO citing the statistics of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare that the number of consultations received by the Ministry concerning dismissals and other disadvantageous treatment for reasons of taking childcare leave was 1,657 in the fiscal year 2009 and 1,543 in the fiscal year 2010. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the relevant sections of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law prohibiting dismissal or otherwise disadvantaged treatment, including information on administrative consultations and judicial decisions relating to these provisions, and their outcome. It also asks the Government to indicate any other measures taken to ensure that the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention are fully applied in law and practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the observations of the All Japan Construction, Traffic and Transportation Workers’ Union Tokyo dated 13 October 2009, concerning the long hours of bus workers, which the union states are incompatible with taking responsibility for the family, and thus violate the Convention. As the Government has not yet had an opportunity to reply to these observations, the Committee invites the Government to provide any information that could be of assistance to the Committee in examining this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2004 and the Conference Committee’s conclusions. It recalls the communications received from the Japan National Hospital Workers Union (JNHWU/ZEN-IRO) dated 4 August 2004, and from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) dated 31 August 2004, to which the Government replied in its report. The Government has also replied to the communication of the Telecommunications Workers’ Union (TSUSHINROSO) received in May 2003. Finally, the Committee notes the further communication from JTUC-RENGO dated 20 September 2006, which was attached to the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Application to all branches
of economic activity and all categories of workers

2. The Committee notes with interest that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law was amended by Law No. 160 of 8 December 2004 to enable those employed by the employer on a fixed-term contract for a continuous period of one year and who are likely to continue to be employed after the date on which the child reaches one year of age, to apply for childcare leave (article 5). Fixed-term workers employed for a continuous period of at least one year can apply for family care leave if they are likely to continue to be employed following the 93rd day after the family care leave started (article 11). The Committee also notes the guidelines concerning measures to be taken by employers to facilitate the coexistence of work and family life of workers who care for children or other family members (“2004 Guidelines”) issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 28 December 2004 which, inter alia, provide guidance as to who qualifies as a fixed-term worker entitled to apply for childcare and family care leave under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law (Part II, paragraph 1, of the Guidelines). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the operation of articles 5 and 11, and provide examples of the way in which an employee could show that he or she is likely to continue to be employed under those articles. Please also provide information on the practical application of these provisions and inform the Committee of any studies carried out on the operation of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law with respect to fixed-term workers, as envisaged under article 2 of the Law’s supplementary provisions.

3. The Committee also notes the statement made by the Government during the Conference discussion emphasizing that measures supporting the harmonization of working and family responsibilities were clearly significant for workers in general, although not all workers would necessarily benefit from all measures. It also notes JTUC-RENGO’s position that the requirements for coverage of fixed-term workers under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law should be relaxed and that the childcare and family care leave system should also be extended to fixed-term workers in the public sector. Recalling that the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers, and that the Conference Committee called on the Government to endeavour to identify means of ensuring the application of the Convention to all categories of workers, including fixed-term, wage-based and part-time workers, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken in this regard and the progress made in putting in place appropriate measures to support the harmonization of work and family responsibilities for all workers.

Article 3. National policy concerning
workers with family responsibilities

4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that under the Law on Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation (Law No. 120 of 2003), undertakings employing more than 300 employees are required to formulate an action plan to facilitate the harmonization of work duties with child rearing (article 12). Smaller enterprises should endeavour to formulate such action plans. Highlighting that only a very small portion of Japanese employers had more than 300 employees, JTUC-RENGO states that the Government should strongly urge all enterprises to adopt such action plans. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the Law on Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation, including information indicating the extent to which enterprises are adopting such plans and indicating the kind of measures that are contained in these plans.

Article 4. Right to free choice of employment. 
Terms and conditions of employment

5. New measures. The Committee notes with interest that a number of new measures have been introduced benefiting workers with family responsibilities in the private and public sectors. The 2004 amendments to the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law introduced new articles 16-2 and 16-3 which require the employer to grant workers raising a child who has not yet entered elementary school, up to five days of leave per year to care for the child in case of injury or illness. With regard to the public sector, the Committee notes with interest that following a revision of rule 10-11 of the National Personnel Authority Rules, national public employees are able, as of 1 April 2005, to start and finish earlier or later in order to care for children who have not yet reached elementary school age, or for family members in need of nursing care and, as of 1 April 2006, to pick up children attending elementary school. As of 1 January 2005, male employees may request childcare participation leave under rule 15-14 to care for a newborn baby or older children below elementary school age during a period before and after childbirth. As of 1 April 2005, leave to care for a sick child was introduced for certain part-time workers under rule 15-15. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these measures, including indications concerning the number of men and women making use of them.

6. Transfer to remote workplaces. The Conference Committee expressed concerns that despite the legislation and guidelines in force, personnel transfers appeared to continue to be imposed on workers without taking into consideration their family responsibilities, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review such practices in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Conference Committee emphasized that it was necessary to ensure that appropriate weight is given to the family responsibilities of workers affected by transfers.

7. In its report, the Government generally, and also in relation to the specific situation reported by TSUSHINROSO in 2003, states that employers and workers should engage in discussions and establish appropriate rules. It also acknowledges that when considering a transfer of a worker with family responsibilities, it was desirable to assess the impact of a transfer on the lives of the employee and his or her family, labour conditions, and other factors. The Government states further that measures should be taken to lessen the burden of the employees concerned, e.g. by announcing transfers well in advance. The Committee notes that the 2004 Guidelines provide that when considering changing the workplace of a worker with family responsibilities, the intentions of the workers concerned should be taken into account. It should also be confirmed that alternative means to care for a child or a family member are available in case the reassignment involves a change in his or her place of work (Part II, paragraph 12 of the Guidelines). Regarding employees of the National Hospital Organization, the Government repeats its previous statements to the effect that decisions concerning personnel transfers between hospitals are based on a careful examination of the employees’ health and family situation and that no decisions ignoring the will of affected workers are being made.

8. JTUC-RENGO emphasizes in its latest comments that under article 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, the employer must take family responsibilities into account when reassigning workers to such workplaces which would make it difficult for the worker to assume his or her family responsibilities. The union indicates that it called on its affiliates to work with employers to ensure family responsibilities are being given due consideration when employees are being transferred.

9. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and welcomes the efforts made by JTUC-RENGO to engage in finding practical solutions to problems of workers with family responsibilities relating to transfers to other workplaces. However, the Committee also recalls that in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, the Government is to ensure that the needs of workers with family responsibilities are taken into consideration in their terms and conditions of employment, which includes transfers to remote workplaces, and that workers enjoy the right to free choice of employment. The Government, as stated in the Conference Committee’s conclusions, should therefore review transfer practices affecting workers with family responsibilities to ensure that they are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the impact of transfer practices, disaggregated by sex. Please also provide information on the measures taken to monitor and review transfer practices, including information on the measures taken to supervise the application of article 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, and on any specific instances where guidance has been given by the competent authorities to resolve related difficulties.

10. Reduction of working hours. The Committee notes JTUC-RENGO’s position that in order to ensure a decent life for all workers, and particularly those with family responsibilities, it was critical to reduce overtime work, and that the actual hours worked should be reduced to 1,800 per year. JTUC-RENGO states that workers were increasingly requested to work long hours, and that workers unable to do so would face unstable forms of employment. Recalling its previous comments on the Government’s efforts to promote the reduction of working time, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Law on Special Measures for the Improvement of Working-Time Arrangements entered into force on 1 April 2006 which, inter alia, promotes flexible working-time arrangements. The Government states that it is making efforts to ensure the Law’s application, including by facilitating shorter working hours.

11. The Committee considers that in order to enable men and women with family responsibilities to enter and remain in the labour market, as well as to advance in their professional development, it is important that further progress is made in the overall reduction of working hours. The Government’s attention is drawn to paragraph 18 of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165) which states that particular attention should be given to general measures for improving working conditions and the quality of working life, including measures aimed at the progressive reduction of daily working hours and the reduction of overtime. The Committee also notes that special measures concerning working time currently available to workers with family responsibilities tend to be relied upon by women. It is concerned that this hinders progress towards achieving gender equality in employment and occupation, one of the Convention’s objectives. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the specific measures taken to promote the reduction of working hours, including the results in achieving the target of 1800 total working hours per year. It also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the Law on Special Measures for the Improvement of Working-Time Arrangements.

Article 5. Childcare service and facilities

12. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that significant progress has been made in extending the availability of childcare services and facilities. Municipalities are required under the revised Child Welfare Law to provide nursing care when the child’s parents or guardians cannot care for the child due to work, illness or other reason. A “Child and Childrearing Support Plan” was formulated in December 2004 and a concentrated effort is being made to improve the situation in municipalities where more than 50 children are on waiting lists for child care. In addition, the Law concerning the promotion of comprehensive provision of education, childcare, etc. concerning preschoolers entered into force in October 2006. The law establishes a system of certified childcare centres. The Committee understands that under the General Action Plan to Support the Development of the Next Generation, local authorities and employers are obliged to establish and implement their own action plans to support childcare. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of Article 5 of the Convention, including on the measures taken by local authorities and private and public sector employers to develop childcare services and facilities open to all workers with family responsibilities.

Article 6. Public understanding of the principle
of gender equality and the problems of
workers with family responsibilities

13. The Committee notes the Conference Committee’s conclusion that it is important to address the situation of men and women workers with family responsibilities in order to make progress in achieving equality. JTCU-RENGO states in their 2006 comments that only a small percentage of men request childcare or family care leave, and JTUC-RENGO states that special measures need to be taken to encourage men to take such leave. JTUC-RENGO also regrets that the notion of work-family balance was not incorporated into the Equal Employment Opportunity Law in the context of its 2006 revision. The FY2003 Annual Report on the State of Formation of a Gender-Equal Society published in 2004 indicates that according to a 2002 survey, only 0.33 per cent of male workers took childcare leave in 2002 compared to 64 per cent of female workers. The Government acknowledges that the number of male workers taking childcare leave was still very low. It indicates that the extent to which men are taking such leave was now one of the criteria in the certification of companies under the Law on Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation. The Government also supports 200 enterprises carrying out a model initiative to promote the participation of men in child-raising. The Second Basic Plan for a Gender-Equal Society approved by Cabinet in December 2005 included support for work-life balance for both sexes as a priority subject.

14. The Committee encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to promote awareness of the need to address work-family issues as a matter of concern to men and women and to promote the sharing of family responsibilities between men and women, as envisaged in Paragraph 11 of Recommendation No. 165. The Committee recommends that further measures be considered targeting men. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote awareness of the problems faced by workers with family responsibilities and the need to address them, as well as on the measures taken to ensure that work-life issues are being addressed as a matter of concern to men and women. Please provide statistical information on the extent to which men and women use the various measures available to facilitate reconciliation between work and family responsibilities.

Article 8. Termination of employment

15. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the protection from termination available under article 1(3) of the Civil Code (abuse of rights) and under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law (prohibition of dismissal due to requesting or taking leave) was both too general, and narrower than that contemplated in Article 8 of the Convention. The Conference Committee concluded with regard to protection against termination of employment due to family responsibilities that the Government should examine whether the current legislation provides for an appropriate basis for the prevention of and protection against such discrimination in practice, in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts.

16. The Committee notes that the Government in its report, points out that fixed-term workers, to the extent that they are within the scope of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Law, following its amendment in 2004, now benefit from the protection available under articles 10 and 16. In addition, the Committee notes that the protection from dismissal now also applies to leave to care for a sick child (article 16-4). The 2004 Guidelines state that workers should not be dismissed or otherwise disadvantaged for having applied for a limitation of working hours or night work (Part II, paragraphs 4(2) and 5(4)). The Committee also notes that JTUC-RENGO expresses regret that the issue of family responsibilities was not included in the Equal Employment Opportunity Law during its 2006 revision. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measure taken to examine, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, whether the current legislation provides for an appropriate basis to prevent and protect workers from dismissal due to family responsibilities. Please indicate the outcome of this examination and any measures taken to ensure that the guarantees of Article 8 are fully applied in law and practice. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide judicial decisions relating to the above provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2004 and the Conference Committee’s request to the Government to provide information in its next report on the matters raised in the discussion, as well as on those matters raised by the Committee of Experts in its observation and direct request made in 2003. The Committee also notes the observations from the Japan National Hospital Workers Union (JNHWU/ZEN-IRO) dated 4 August 2003 and from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) dated 31 August 2003, which have been forwarded to the Government. RENGO acknowledges that certain progress has been made with regard to the revision of the Child-Care and Nursing Care Leave Act but raises a number of issues that still need to be addressed. JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that in the context of the establishment of the National Hospital Organization, where many wage-based workers had obtained regular status employment, some wage-based nurses were only offered part-time status due to their family responsibilities. The Committee will address these comments together with the Government’s response to these comments and to its 2003 observation and direct request.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Further to its observation, the Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the attached documentation.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that although the provisions on childcare and nursing care leave in the Child-Care and Family Care Leave Act, No. 107 of 1995 do not apply to fixed-term workers, measures related to overtime and night work do apply to all fixed-term workers, and that there are no differences between full-time and part-time workers. Similarly, it notes that although the provisions on child and nursing care in the Act on Child-Care Leave for Public Employees do apply to part-time employees, the Guidelines of the National Personnel Authority provide that the limitations on overtime and night work apply to part-time workers. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any other provisions of the abovementioned legislation that apply to fixed-term and part-time workers with family responsibilities.

2. With regard to the exclusion of workers with fixed-term and daily contracts from the application of the Child-Care and Family Care Leave Act, No. 107, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is developing a guideline for evaluating whether or not a person can be described as being employed for an undetermined period of time, and that it will be up to the employer to judge the type of contract based on this guideline. It also notes that in the case of doubt, the Government shall make the decision but that the final judgement whether or not an employer was allowed to refuse to grant leave to a worker is entrusted to the courts. The Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the guideline, once it is adopted, and to provide information on its application in practice, as well as on any court decisions regarding the granting of leave to fixed-term and daily workers.

3. Article 3. Referring to its previous comments on the extension of Act No. 9 of 1992 on temporary measures to promote the reduction of working time for another five years, the Committee notes that the Government has made it a priority to eliminate overtime work and promote annual paid holidays, and that it is continuing its efforts to shorten hours of work. It notes the measures taken by the Government, such as the raising of awareness on a system of flexible working hours, the support measures to employers who provide for a shortening of working hours under the Child-Care and Family Care Leave Act, and a reduction of the maximum of hours of overtime for employees in the public service engaged in child or nursing care from 360 to 150 hours per year. Noting the information contained in the FY2001 and FY2002 annual reports on the state of formation of a gender equal society including the gender disparity in working patterns, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken with regard to Act No. 9 and to indicate in its next report how these and other measures taken have helped and encouraged especially male workers to work shorter hours with a view to balancing better their work and family responsibilities.

4. Article 5. The Committee notes that the policy on support measures for balancing of work and child-raising in July 2001 is to be implemented by FY2004. It also notes the Bill to revise the Child Welfare Act, which entered the Diet in March 2003, which will: (1) establish new regulations to promote the implementation of childcare support activities in municipalities that are based on the inclusion of childcare support activities into law; and (2) call for the creation of childcare plans in certain local governments that have children waiting to get into nurseries. The Committee welcomes these measures and asks the Government to keep it informed of the adoption of the Bill and the implementation of the said policy and to continue to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the application of Article 5(b) of the Convention in regard to childcare services and facilities.

5. Article 6. With reference to its previous comments concerning the creation of family-friendly workplaces and promotion campaigns targeting male workers with family responsibilities, the Committee notes the Government’s reply that the number of men taking childcare leave has not increased. It also notes from the annual report of FY2002 that, according to a survey carried out in 2001-02, 80.2 per cent of working mothers took or would take childcare leave but only 0.7 per cent of the male workers took or would take childcare leave, and that the working environment in Japanese companies prevents male workers from taking childcare leave. Noting that the abovementioned FY2001 annual report states that "… the creation of a work environment that makes it easier for men to take childcare leave [is] indispensable to building a society that can accommodate balancing of work and child raising", the Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on specific measures taken or contemplated to increase the effectiveness of the work-family programmes and to improve the environment in Japanese companies with a view to increasing the number of women and especially men taking childcare leave.

6. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that section 33 of the Child-Care and Family Care Leave Act, No. 107, provides that the Government shall undertake necessary publicity activities to increase the understanding of the general public regarding the coexistence of work and family life. It also notes the various initiatives, including seminars and symposia, by the Government to raise awareness on equal opportunity and treatment for men and women workers, including the "proposals for positive action" formulated by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and employers’ organizations in April 2002, which resulted in the creation of the Positive Action Promotion Council in each of the prefectures. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information in this regard, and in particular on the contents of the abovementioned proposals and the activities of the Council with regard to raising public understanding of the problems of men and women workers with family responsibilities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the information in the Government’s report and the attached documentation. It also notes the comments made by the National Hospital Workers’ Union (JNHWU/ZEN-IRO), the Telecommunication Workers’ Union (TSUSHINROSO) and the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) received in 2002 and 2003, as well as the Government’s response.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. In its communication of 27 August 2003, JTUC-RENGO once again reiterates the point that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, No. 107, does not apply to fixed-term contract workers, which is against the spirit of the Convention. In its previous comments of 2000 and 2001, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO also indicated that wage-based workers were excluded from the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act and did not, unlike regular personnel, enjoy paid leave to care for injured, sick or elderly family members. They referred to the draft Bill to be submitted to the 151st Diet session which would modify legislation on childcare and nursing care leave to extend the application of childcare leave to workers who are de facto employed on a permanent basis due to repeated renewals of the employment contract. In its most recent comments of 6 August 2002 and 26 August 2003, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO indicates that the Government remains unwilling to institutionalize childcare leave and nursing leave of wage-based workers, and has still not taken any measures to extend the application of the Convention to wage-based workers in state-run hospitals and sanatoriums. In their view wage employees in national hospitals and sanatoriums, who are doing the same work as regular status workers but whose position is unstable, should at the least be eligible for childcare and nursing leave.

2. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the childcare and nursing leave systems are set up for continuous long-term employment and therefore not applicable to part-time workers and wage employees who work on a daily basis and whose contract of employment is predetermined. The Government adds that the revisions of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act only include measures to limit overtime work for workers raising pre-elementary school children, and measures concerning leave for care-giving for pre-elementary school children. Noting that the draft revised law does not extend the right to childcare and nursing leave to additional categories of workers, such as fixed-term and wage-based workers, the Committee is bound to recall that the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. It recalls that the Convention is intended to cover all workers "whether in full-time, part-time, temporary or other forms of employment, and whether in waged or unwaged employment". The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, how it intends to ensure the right to childcare and nursing leave to part-time, fixed-term and wage-based workers.

3. Article 4(a). Personnel transfers to remote workplaces. In its comments of 27 August 2003, JTUC-RENGO continues to express its concern over the fact that company regulations often require full-time employees to work overtime and change workplaces, so that workers with family responsibilities, most of whom are women, are forced to work part time. Instead, full-time and part-time workers with family responsibilities should enjoy the right to be exempted from overtime. In replying to JTUC-RENGO’s comments, the Government states that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act limits overtime within a specific range and that it is desirable for employers and employees to reach agreements on appropriate working hours management. The Committee urges the Government to try to ensure that such agreements are reached in accordance with the intent and provisions of the Convention.

4. In its previous observation, the Committee also noted the comments of TSUSHINROSO regarding the transfer of workers employed at the Nihon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) and allied companies, which greatly affected the ability of the employees to manage their work and family responsibilities. Similar concerns were also raised by JNHWU/ZEN-IRO in its comments of 2000 and 2001, in which it presented data of hospital and sanatorium workers who had undergone transfers without consultation or announcement from the employer prior to transfer. According to the JNHWU/ZEN-IRO, workers were being forced to choose between accepting the transfer and being separated from their families, refusing the transfer and risking being dismissed, or simply quitting their job. The Committee notes that concerns regarding the practice of transferring employees to distant workplaces without prior consultation are repeated in recent comments of TSUSHINROSO (dated 7 May 2003) and JNHWU/ZEN-IRO (dated 6 August 2002 and 26 August 2003). According to TSUSHINROSO, no measures were taken to benefit the transferred workers with family responsibilities, referred to in their previous comments, and transfers unilaterally imposed by the employer continued. The Committee notes in this regard the appended list of transferred workers, most of whom are men older than 50 years of age. TSUSHINROSO indicates that long-distance commuting or being away from their families has increased the workers’ cost of living and dramatically changed their living and working conditions, as well as their family life. The Committee notes that the comments of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO also mention the lack of improvement in the manner transfers are unilaterally imposed on the employees of hospitals and sanatoriums, as indicated in the surveys undertaken by the JNHWU Tokai-Hokuriku and Kanto-Shinetsu Regional Councils in May and July 2002. The results also show that the promotion of nurses and nursing teachers, most of whom are women, usually involves a transfer to a new institution. The Committee notes that both the JNHWU/ZEN-IRO and TSUSHINROSO particularly criticize the transferral of workers nearing retirement age without consultation or special consideration to their family life.

5. In replying to the JNHWU/ZEN-IRO’s comments, the Government states that decisions on personnel transfers are based on the needs of the service, the principle of the merit system, the qualifications, abilities and experience of the personnel, as well as the affected employee’s health and family responsibilities. The Government adds that employees are, however, not allowed to refuse a transfer without a rational reason, but that the system does not discriminate against any employees, including those who are up for retirement. It further repeats its previous statements that appropriate rules should be established between employers and employees and that efforts should be made by employers to identify the impact of the transfer on the lives of the employee with family responsibilities. The Government further indicates that the Guidelines of the National Personnel Authority (2001) concerning the enlargement of the recruitment and promotion of female public employees specify that the Office or the Ministry shall take into consideration the family background and family responsibilities of an employee who is being transferred. The Government has not yet responded to the comments made by TSUSHINROSO, dated 13 May 2003.

6. The Committee notes that section 26 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act provides that employers must give consideration to workers with family responsibilities in the case of job relocation to remote workplaces. The Committee notes, however, that despite the provisions of the above Act and the established guidelines, it appears that transfers unilaterally imposed by the employers without prior consultation or without recognition of the employee’s objections due to family responsibilities continue to occur. Moreover, affected employees are notified of their new place of employment only three weeks prior to their transfer. The Committee must therefore reiterate its previous comments in which it considered that, in order to take a worker’s family situation into consideration in accordance with Article 4(a) of the Convention, the employer should give the fullest consideration possible to the worker’s genuine need to care for members of his or her family. The worker’s family responsibilities in this regard should be considered and given appropriate significant weight along with the business reasons underlying the transfer proposal. The Committee points out that efforts to promote the ability of workers with family responsibilities to balance their family and work life, include these workers’ ability to balance their family responsibilities with any advances they may make in their professional lives. Therefore, to the extent possible, employer practices should not force workers to choose between retaining their jobs or fulfilling their family responsibilities, in so far as these responsibilities do not impair their ability to perform the job. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps so that the practice of imposing transfers on workers be reviewed and brought into greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

7. Article 4(b). With respect to the public sector, the Committee notes with interest the revisions in the relevant laws and regulations covering the public sector expanding full and partial childcare for national and local public employees having a child under 1 year of age to employees having a child under 3 years, and increasing nursing care leave for regular service employees from three to six months. It also notes that section 22(10) of Rule 15-14 of the National Personnel Authority Guidelines establishes a special leave to care for a sick child. With respect to the private sector, the Committee notes that the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act provides (section 25) that employers must endeavour to take measures to provide childcare leave to employees with children who have not yet begun attending elementary school. It also notes the additional support measures for employers that establish childcare systems or appoint a "Work-Family Coexistence Facilitation Officer". JTUC-RENGO points out that the legislation would be more effective if it clearly established childcare and family care leave as a workers’ right and did not just require employers to make efforts to provide for childcare leave. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of this section of the Act and to indicate whether it intends to extend the legislative measures concerning childcare to workers who wish to take family care leave.

8. Article 5. In its recent comments, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that the Government has not yet implemented any measures to improve in-house nurseries in hospitals and sanatoriums. It further states that in 2004 most of the national hospitals and sanatoriums will be transferred to a new independent administrative agency and that it remains unclear what will happen to the in-house nurseries and the employment of their personnel. While welcoming the Government’s information on the adoption by the Cabinet of the policy on support measures for balancing work and child-raising in July 2001 which provides concrete goals and measures to increase the numbers of children enrolled in nurseries and to increase the number of establishments for after-school activities, the Committee notes that the Government has omitted to provide specific information as regards the comments made by JNHWU/ZEN-IRO. It therefore asks the Government to provide information on the status and future of the in-house nurseries and their personnel in national hospitals and sanatoriums.

9. Article 8. In its previous observations, the Committee noted the comments raised by JTUC-RENGO concerning the lack of protection in Japanese legislation against termination of employment due to family responsibilities. In its reply, the Government referred to section 1(3) of the Civil Code providing for general protection to persons against abuse of their rights, and to sections 10 and 16 of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act, No. 107, which prohibit dismissal due to requesting or taking childcare or family leave. In this regard, the Committee pointed out that the protection provided under these provisions was both too general (as they do not specify workers with family responsibilities or protection from termination of employment), and narrower than that contemplated in Article 8 of the Convention, as it was not directed to family responsibilities in general. Moreover, Act No. 107 appears to exclude daily labourers and workers on fixed-term contracts from its coverage. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any reply to its previous comments and is therefore bound to reiterate its request to the Government to indicate whether there are any judicial decisions interpreting the legal provisions referred to, and if so, to provide copies of such decisions. The Government is also asked to provide information in its next report on any measures taken to ensure that the guarantees of Article 8 are applied fully in national law and practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Further to its observation, the Committee repeats its previous comments, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and attached documentation.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that legislative provisions limiting night work and other provisions of the Child Care and Family Leave Act apply to workers on fixed-term contracts. The Committee notes that article 2 of the Law Concerning the Welfare of Workers Who Take Care of Children or Other Family Members Including Child Care and Family Care Leave, Act No. 107 of 9 June 1995, appears to exclude day labourers and workers on fixed-term contracts from entitlement to childcare leave. The Committee requests the Government to supply concrete information indicating those provisions limiting night work, overtime work and provisions of Act No. 107 which are extended to workers on fixed-term contracts, as well as to categories of workers other than full-time salaried employees (part-time workers, wage-based workers, etc.).

2. Referring to its earlier comments concerning whether workers with daily contracts and workers with fixed-term contracts are excluded from the application of the law on childcare and family care leave, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is possible that workers on fixed-term contracts be granted childcare and family care leave, but that it is not the employer who decides on this point. The Committee requests the Government to clarify its response on this point, and to indicate under what circumstances this leave may be granted to daily workers and workers on fixed-term contracts, as well as to indicate who in fact decides on this point if not the employer.

3. Article 3. Referring to its previous comments on Law No. 9 of 2 July 1992 respecting temporary measures to promote the reduction of working time, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although the law was initially intended to be abolished on 31 March 2001, it was instead extended by five years. The report indicates that the Government is still working on the issue of the reduction of working hours. Noting that the organization of working time, including flexible working arrangements and reduced hours, is essential to help workers balance their work and family responsibilities, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed on any developments regarding Law No. 9 as well as the measures taken or contemplated by the Government in this regard.

4. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that section 12(6) of the regulations issued under the law respecting minimum working conditions (No. 23 of 1947) also applies to daily workers.

5. Article 6. The Committee notes with interest that studies concerning the impact on employers and workers of promotional campaigns relevant to the Convention show a marked increase in the number of workplaces providing for childcare and family care leave in their enterprise regulations. The Government indicates that the use of family-friendly employment practices is increasing, as is the total amount of childcare and family care leave subsidies provided by the Government to employers assisting their employees in balancing their work and family responsibilities. The Government indicates that the number of women workers taking childcare leave has also increased. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether there has been a corresponding increase in the number of men taking either childcare or family care leave as a result of the promotional campaigns. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information in this regard.

6. The Committee notes the FY2000 Annual Report on the State of Formation of a Gender-equal Society and Policies to be Implemented in FY2001 to Promote the Formation of a Gender-equal Society ("FY2000 Annual Report") supplied by the Government, which states that very little change was observed in perceptions of fixed-gender roles from 1995 to 2000 and that such perceptions ‘remain as firmly rooted as ever’. Recalling the Preamble to the Convention, which recognizes that ‘a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women’, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to promote information and education to raise public understanding of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers and of the problems of workers with family responsibilities, as well as a climate of opinion conducive to overcoming these problems. Please supply a copy of the Annual Report with the Government’s next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the comments from the Japan National Hospital Workers’ Union (JNZWU/ZEN-IRO), received on 15 August 2002. The comments have been forwarded to the Government and the Committee will address them together with any comments the Government might have thereon, at its next session. In addition, the Committee repeats its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report. It also notes the comments made by the Japan National Hospital Workers’ Union (JNHWU/ZEN-IRO), the Telecommunication Workers’ Unions (TSUSHINROUSO) and the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO), as well as the Government’s response.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. JTUC-RENGO indicates that the Convention is not applied in Japan to workers with fixed-term contracts and it recommends that the application of the Convention be extended to this category of workers. In its comments, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO notes that wage-based workers (chingin-shokuin) employed in Japanese hospitals are excluded from the coverage of the Child Care Leave Act. JNHWU/ZEN-IRO indicated in its 17 October 2000 comments that regular personnel in state-run hospitals enjoy paid leave to care for injured, sick or elderly family members, but that this benefit is not extended to wage-based workers. In its communications of 16 August and 22 August 2001, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that discriminatory treatment of wage-based workers in Japanese hospitals continues.

2. In its recent comments, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO points out that the Government has introduced a draft bill to the 151st Diet session which would modify the national legislation on childcare and nursing care leave, inter alia, to extend the application of the childcare leave law to those workers who are employed de facto on a permanent basis due to repeated renewals of their employment contracts. In this regard, the Committee notes the FY2000 Annual Report on the State of Formation of a Gender-equal Society and Policies to be Implemented in FY2001 to Promote the Formation of a Gender-equal Society ("FY2000 Annual Report") supplied by the Government. The FY2000 Annual Report indicates that the draft bill submitted in February 2001 would: (1) incorporate welfare provisions for workers raising children and caring for family members; (2) prohibit disadvantageous treatment of workers due to their use of childcare or family care leave; (3) raise the age of children targeted by measures entitling workers to reduce working hours; and (4) provide for nursing leave.

3. With regard to coverage of the Convention, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention states that it applies to "all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers". As the Committee observed in paragraph 46 of its General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, the phrasing of the Convention was intended to cover all workers, "whether in full-time, part-time, temporary or other forms of employment, and whether they are in waged or unwaged employment". Therefore, the Committee welcomes the draft law, noting that its adoption would extend the right to childcare and nursing leave to additional categories of workers. In this regard, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information concerning any measures taken or contemplated to extend application of the provisions of the Convention to part-time workers, workers on fixed-term contracts and wage-based workers. The Committee expresses the hope that the draft bill will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to supply a copy of the Act once it is adopted.

4. Article 3. The Committee notes initiatives taken by the Government to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for workers with family responsibilities, including the approval in December 2000 of the Basic Plan for Gender Equality, which includes the objective of supporting men’s and women’s efforts to harmonize work with their family and community life. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement the objectives of the Basic Plan relevant to the Convention.

5. Article 4(a). Personnel transfers to remote workplaces. JTUC-RENGO states that company regulations frequently require full-time workers in Japan to remain available to work overtime hours or to transfer to a different workplace. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the comments of JTUC-RENGO (dated 29 October 1999), as well as those of TSUSHINROUSO (dated 17 October 2000) regarding the transfer of workers with family responsibilities to remote workplaces. TSUSHINROUSO’s comments concern the transfer of workers employed by the Nihon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) and allied companies. According to TSUSHINROUSO, the transfers have placed great strains on the employees’ lives, particularly on their ability to manage their family responsibilities and balance those responsibilities with their work lives. Replying to TSUSHINROUSO’s comments, the Government indicates that adequate rules should be negotiated between employers and employees before personnel are transferred to a distant workplace, and that such rules should, to the extent possible, define the areas and conditions of the transfers, taking measures to reduce the burden of the transfer on the worker. The Committee notes that similar concerns were raised in the 17 October 2000 comments of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO, which presented several examples of workers allegedly forced to resign from their jobs as a result of being transferred to distant workplaces without their consent. In all the cases presented, while the Government indicates that the workers’ family responsibilities were considered by the employer, it appears that the workers’ objections were overlooked because the transfers were considered to constitute recognition of the workers’ experience and abilities.

6. The Committee notes that concerns regarding the practice of transferring employees to distant workplaces without prior consultation are also raised in the recent comments of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO (dated 22 August 2001), which refer to the results of a survey on personnel transfers conducted in April 2001 by the Kanto-Shinetsu Regional Council of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO. Out of 89 hospital and sanatorium workers who had undergone transfers, the majority (89 per cent) indicated that there had been no consultation or announcement from the employer prior to transfer. Twenty per cent of those surveyed indicated that the transfers required them to live away from their families. In its previous comments dated 17 October 2000, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO noted that forced transfers to distant workplaces are frequently imposed upon staff, disregarding the will of the employees concerned. According to JNHWU/ZEN-IRO, workers are thereby forced to choose between accepting the transfer and being separated from their families, refusing the transfer and risk being dismissed, or simply quitting the job. The Government has not yet responded to these comments.

7. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 20 of Recommendation No. 165 encourages employers to consider family responsibilities when transferring workers from one locality to another. The Committee notes that the fact that a transfer may represent recognition of a worker’s capabilities or even a promotion is not dispositive of whether the worker is able or willing to accept a transfer, as the worker’s family responsibilities may preclude him or her from moving to a different workplace. The Committee considers that, in order to take a worker’s family situation into consideration in accordance with Article 4(a) of the Convention, the employer should give the fullest consideration possible to the worker’s genuine need to care for members of his or her family. The worker’s family responsibilities in this regard should be considered and given appropriate weight along with the business reasons underlying the transfer proposal. The Committee also points out that a worker’s acceptance of a transfer in the past does not signify that the worker is able or willing to accept a transfer to a distant workplace at another stage of his or her life, as family circumstances can, and frequently do, change. In this context, the Committee points out that one of the objectives of the Convention is to promote the ability of workers with family responsibilities to balance their family and work life. As a necessary corollary, this would include these workers’ ability to balance their family responsibilities with any advances they may make in their professional lives. Therefore, to the extent possible, employer practices should not force workers to choose between retaining their jobs or fulfilling their family responsibilities, in so far as these responsibilities do not impair their ability to perform the job. The Committee expresses the hope that the practice of imposing transfers on workers will be reviewed and brought into greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

8. Article 4(b). The Committee notes with interest that childcare and family leave benefits have been raised from 25 per cent of the worker’s wage to 40 per cent as of January 2001. The Committee also notes the measures taken by the Government to facilitate the taking of childcare leave, including assistance to employers replacing employees on childcare leave and placing the employee in the same position after the leave, exemptions from payment of insurance premiums and year-end bonuses paid to employees on childcare leave. JTUC-RENGO points out that the measure providing for exemptions from payment of insurance premiums does not extend to workers on family care leave. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken or contemplated to extend application of these provisions to workers on family care leave.

9. Article 5. In its comments of 17 October 2000, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that in-house nurseries at national hospitals are not adequately staffed as required by the Child Welfare Act. It further states that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has not allocated sufficient fund for in-house childcare facilities, but has instead commissioned the Mutual Aid Association to administer those services. In reply, the Government states that the management of these facilities, established by the Second Mutual Aid Association of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, is commissioned to the Childcare Facilities Management Council; that it is taking all measures possible under present conditions; and that these services are not considered as services that the Government is obligated to provide. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that Article 5(b) of the Convention requires the Government to take all measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities to develop or promote ‘community services, public or private, such as childcare and family services and facilities’. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the application of Article 5(b) in regard to childcare services and facilities.

10. Article 8. The Committee refers to its previous observation noting the communication received from JTUC-RENGO on 29 October 1999, which expressed concerns over the lack of protection in Japanese legislation against termination of employment due to family responsibilities. In its communication, JTUC-RENGO had indicated that there was a divergence between the protection provided under Article 8 of the Convention and Japanese law. Responding to the concerns raised by JTUC-RENGO, the Government indicates that protection against dismissal on the basis of family responsibilities is covered by section 1(3) of the Japanese Civil Code. The Government also notes that sections 10 and 16 of the Child Care and Family Leave Act No. 107 of 9 June 1995, prohibit an employer from dismissing an employee because he or she has requested to take or has taken such leave. In this regard, the Committee notes that section 1(3) of the Civil Code appears to provide general protection to persons against abuses of their rights, without specifying either workers with family responsibilities or protection from termination of employment. Moreover, the Committee notes that the protection from dismissal provided by Act No. 107 is narrower than that contemplated by Article 8 of the Convention, as it is directed only at the issue of dismissal due to requesting or taking childcare or family care leave, not to dismissal due to family responsibilities generally. Further, Act No. 107 appears to exclude daily labourers and workers on fixed-term contracts from coverage. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are any judicial decisions interpreting the legal provisions referred to and, if so, to supply copies of any such decisions. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken to ensure that Article 8 is applied in national law and practice.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and attached documentation.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that legislative provisions limiting night work and other provisions of the Child Care and Family Leave Act apply to workers on fixed-term contracts. The Committee notes that article 2 of the Law Concerning the Welfare of Workers Who Take Care of Children or Other Family Members Including Child Care and Family Care Leave, Act No. 107 of 9 June 1995, appears to exclude day labourers and workers on fixed-term contracts from entitlement to childcare leave. The Committee requests the Government to supply concrete information indicating those provisions limiting night work, overtime work and provisions of Act No. 107 which are extended to workers on fixed-term contracts, as well as to categories of workers other than full-time salaried employees (part-time workers, wage-based workers, etc.).

2. Referring to its earlier comments concerning whether workers with daily contracts and workers with fixed-term contracts are excluded from the application of the law on childcare and family care leave, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is possible that workers on fixed-term contracts be granted childcare and family care leave, but that it is not the employer who decides on this point. The Committee requests the Government to clarify its response on this point, and to indicate under what circumstances this leave may be granted to daily workers and workers on fixed-term contracts, as well as to indicate who in fact decides on this point if not the employer.

3. Article 3. Referring to its previous comments on Law No. 9 of 2 July 1992 respecting temporary measures to promote the reduction of working time, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although the law was initially intended to be abolished on 31 March 2001, it was instead extended by five years. The report indicates that the Government is still working on the issue of the reduction of working hours. Noting that the organization of working time, including flexible working arrangements and reduced hours, is essential to help workers balance their work and family responsibilities, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed on any developments regarding Law No. 9 as well as the measures taken or contemplated by the Government in this regard.

4. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that section 12(6) of the regulations issued under the law respecting minimum working conditions (No. 23 of 1947) also applies to daily workers.

5. Article 6. The Committee notes with interest that studies concerning the impact on employers and workers of promotional campaigns relevant to the Convention show a marked increase in the number of workplaces providing for childcare and family care leave in their enterprise regulations. The Government indicates that the use of family-friendly employment practices is increasing, as is the total amount of childcare and family care leave subsidies provided by the Government to employers assisting their employees in balancing their work and family responsibilities. The Government indicates that the number of women workers taking childcare leave has also increased. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether there has been a corresponding increase in the number of men taking either childcare or family care leave as a result of the promotional campaigns. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information in this regard.

6. The Committee notes the FY2000 Annual Report on the State of Formation of a Gender-equal Society and Policies to be Implemented in FY2001 to Promote the Formation of a Gender-equal Society ("FY2000 Annual Report") supplied by the Government, which states that very little change was observed in perceptions of fixed-gender roles from 1995 to 2000 and that such perceptions "remain as firmly rooted as ever". Recalling the Preamble to the Convention, which recognizes that "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women", the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to promote information and education to raise public understanding of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers and of the problems of workers with family responsibilities, as well as a climate of opinion conducive to overcoming these problems. Please supply a copy of the Annual Report with the Government’s next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report. It also notes the comments made by the Japan National Hospital Workers’ Union (JNHWU/ZEN-IRO), the Telecommunication Workers’ Unions (TSUSHINROUSO) and the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO), as well as the Government’s response.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. JTUC-RENGO indicates that the Convention is not applied in Japan to workers with fixed-term contracts and it recommends that the application of the Convention be extended to this category of workers. In its comments, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO notes that wage-based workers (chingin-shokuin) employed in Japanese hospitals are excluded from the coverage of the Child Care Leave Act. JNHWU/ZEN-IRO indicated in its 17 October 2000 comments that regular personnel in state-run hospitals enjoy paid leave to care for injured, sick or elderly family members, but that this benefit is not extended to wage-based workers. In its communications of 16 August and 22 August 2001, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that discriminatory treatment of wage-based workers in Japanese hospitals continues.

2. In its recent comments, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO points out that the Government has introduced a draft bill to the 151st Diet session which would modify the national legislation on childcare and nursing care leave, inter alia, to extend the application of the childcare leave law to those workers who are employed de facto on a permanent basis due to repeated renewals of their employment contracts. In this regard, the Committee notes the FY2000 Annual Report on the State of Formation of a Gender-equal Society and Policies to be Implemented in FY2001 to Promote the Formation of a Gender-equal Society ("FY2000 Annual Report") supplied by the Government. The FY2000 Annual Report indicates that the draft bill submitted in February 2001 would: (1) incorporate welfare provisions for workers raising children and caring for family members; (2) prohibit disadvantageous treatment of workers due to their use of childcare or family care leave; (3) raise the age of children targeted by measures entitling workers to reduce working hours; and (4) provide for nursing leave.

3. With regard to coverage of the Convention, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention states that it applies to "all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers". As the Committee observed in paragraph 46 of its General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, the phrasing of the Convention was intended to cover all workers, "whether in full-time, part-time, temporary or other forms of employment, and whether they are in waged or unwaged employment". Therefore, the Committee welcomes the draft law, noting that its adoption would extend the right to childcare and nursing leave to additional categories of workers. In this regard, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information concerning any measures taken or contemplated to extend application of the provisions of the Convention to part-time workers, workers on fixed-term contracts and wage-based workers. The Committee expresses the hope that the draft bill will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to supply a copy of the Act once it is adopted.

4. Article 3. The Committee notes initiatives taken by the Government to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for workers with family responsibilities, including the approval in December 2000 of the Basic Plan for Gender Equality, which includes the objective of supporting men’s and women’s efforts to harmonize work with their family and community life. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement the objectives of the Basic Plan relevant to the Convention.

5. Article 4(a). Personnel transfers to remote workplaces. JTUC-RENGO states that company regulations frequently require full-time workers in Japan to remain available to work overtime hours or to transfer to a different workplace. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the comments of JTUC-RENGO (dated 29 October 1999), as well as those of TSUSHINROUSO (dated 17 October 2000) regarding the transfer of workers with family responsibilities to remote workplaces. TSUSHINROUSO’s comments concern the transfer of workers employed by the Nihon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) and allied companies. According to TSUSHINROUSO, the transfers have placed great strains on the employees’ lives, particularly on their ability to manage their family responsibilities and balance those responsibilities with their work lives. Replying to TSUSHINROUSO’s comments, the Government indicates that adequate rules should be negotiated between employers and employees before personnel are transferred to a distant workplace, and that such rules should, to the extent possible, define the areas and conditions of the transfers, taking measures to reduce the burden of the transfer on the worker. The Committee notes that similar concerns were raised in the 17 October 2000 comments of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO, which presented several examples of workers allegedly forced to resign from their jobs as a result of being transferred to distant workplaces without their consent. In all the cases presented, while the Government indicates that the workers’ family responsibilities were considered by the employer, it appears that the workers’ objections were overlooked because the transfers were considered to constitute recognition of the workers’ experience and abilities.

6. The Committee notes that concerns regarding the practice of transferring employees to distant workplaces without prior consultation are also raised in the recent comments of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO (dated 22 August 2001), which refer to the results of a survey on personnel transfers conducted in April 2001 by the Kanto-Shinetsu Regional Council of JNHWU/ZEN-IRO. Out of 89 hospital and sanatorium workers who had undergone transfers, the majority (89 per cent) indicated that there had been no consultation or announcement from the employer prior to transfer. Twenty per cent of those surveyed indicated that the transfers required them to live away from their families. In its previous comments dated 17 October 2000, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO noted that forced transfers to distant workplaces are frequently imposed upon staff, disregarding the will of the employees concerned. According to JNHWU/ZEN-IRO, workers are thereby forced to choose between accepting the transfer and being separated from their families, refusing the transfer and risk being dismissed, or simply quitting the job. The Government has not yet responded to these comments.

7. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 20 of Recommendation No. 165 encourages employers to consider family responsibilities when transferring workers from one locality to another. The Committee notes that the fact that a transfer may represent recognition of a worker’s capabilities or even a promotion is not dispositive of whether the worker is able or willing to accept a transfer, as the worker’s family responsibilities may preclude him or her from moving to a different workplace. The Committee considers that, in order to take a worker’s family situation into consideration in accordance with Article 4(a) of the Convention, the employer should give the fullest consideration possible to the worker’s genuine need to care for members of his or her family. The worker’s family responsibilities in this regard should be considered and given appropriate weight along with the business reasons underlying the transfer proposal. The Committee also points out that a worker’s acceptance of a transfer in the past does not signify that the worker is able or willing to accept a transfer to a distant workplace at another stage of his or her life, as family circumstances can, and frequently do, change. In this context, the Committee points out that one of the objectives of the Convention is to promote the ability of workers with family responsibilities to balance their family and work life. As a necessary corollary, this would include these workers’ ability to balance their family responsibilities with any advances they may make in their professional lives. Therefore, to the extent possible, employer practices should not force workers to choose between retaining their jobs or fulfilling their family responsibilities, in so far as these responsibilities do not impair their ability to perform the job. The Committee expresses the hope that the practice of imposing transfers on workers will be reviewed and brought into greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

8. Article 4(b). The Committee notes with interest that childcare and family leave benefits have been raised from 25 per cent of the worker’s wage to 40 per cent as of January 2001. The Committee also notes the measures taken by the Government to facilitate the taking of childcare leave, including assistance to employers replacing employees on childcare leave and placing the employee in the same position after the leave, exemptions from payment of insurance premiums and year-end bonuses paid to employees on childcare leave. JTUC-RENGO points out that the measure providing for exemptions from payment of insurance premiums does not extend to workers on family care leave. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken or contemplated to extend application of these provisions to workers on family care leave.

9. Article 5. In its comments of 17 October 2000, JNHWU/ZEN-IRO states that in-house nurseries at national hospitals are not adequately staffed as required by the Child Welfare Act. It further states that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has not allocated sufficient funds for in-house childcare facilities, but has instead commissioned the Mutual Aid Association to administer those services. In reply, the Government states that the management of these facilities, established by the Second Mutual Aid Association of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, is commissioned to the Childcare Facilities Management Council; that it is taking all measures possible under present conditions; and that these services are not considered as services that the Government is obligated to provide. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that Article 5(b) of the Convention requires the Government to take all measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities to develop or promote "community services, public or private, such as child-care and family services and facilities". The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the application of Article 5(b) in regard to childcare services and facilities.

10. Article 8. The Committee refers to its previous observation noting the communication received from JTUC-RENGO on 29 October 1999, which expressed concerns over the lack of protection in Japanese legislation against termination of employment due to family responsibilities. In its communication, JTUC-RENGO had indicated that there was a divergence between the protection provided under Article 8 of the Convention and Japanese law. Responding to the concerns raised by JTUC-RENGO, the Government indicates that protection against dismissal on the basis of family responsibilities is covered by section 1(3) of the Japanese Civil Code. The Government also notes that sections 10 and 16 of the Child Care and Family Leave Act, No. 107 of 9 June 1995, prohibit an employer from dismissing an employee because he or she has requested to take or has taken such leave. In this regard, the Committee notes that section 1(3) of the Civil Code appears to provide general protection to persons against abuses of their rights, without specifying either workers with family responsibilities or protection from termination of employment. Moreover, the Committee notes that the protection from dismissal provided by Act No. 107 is narrower than that contemplated by Article 8 of the Convention, as it is directed only at the issue of dismissal due to requesting or taking childcare or family care leave, not to dismissal due to family responsibilities generally. Further, Act No. 107 appears to exclude daily labourers and workers on fixed-term contracts from coverage. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are any judicial decisions interpreting the legal provisions referred to and, if so, to supply copies of any such decisions. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken to ensure that Article 8 is applied in national law and practice.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1.  Article 2 of the Convention.  With reference to its previous comments, which were based on the observations made in a communication from the Tokyo Union of Community Workers (TUCW), the Committee notes the Government’s statement that workers with daily contracts and workers engaged for a fixed term are excluded from the scope of the law respecting parental leave and family leave, since the nature of their contracts is incompatible with the leave provided, which may be of long duration. The Government repeats its explanation that it is the real nature and not the formal denomination of the contract which determines whether or not the worker benefits from the provisions of the above law. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the decision to grant such leave is left at the discretion of the employer. It also recalls that, in accordance with Article 2, the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to take into account the specific needs of daily workers with regard to their family responsibilities. It would also be grateful to be informed whether these workers benefit from other measures set out in the legislation for the harmonization of working and family life, such as social security, allowances for dependent children, etc. With regard to unorganized workers and workers in small enterprises, the Committee notes that the percentage of enterprises which have established parental and family leave is not lower for enterprises which do not have an organized trade union than for enterprises where there is a trade union. It also notes that workers are entitled to such leave, even where it is not envisaged in their enterprise rules.

2.  The Committee notes the Government’s explanation with regard to section 67 of the law respecting minimum working conditions, which provides for additional hours to care for a child under the age of 1 year.

3.  Article 3.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that entitlement to parental or family leave is envisaged for men and women without distinction in accordance with the law, as is the right to apply for a reduction in overtime hours. The Government also indicates that it is continuing its efforts to promote the concept of family-friendly enterprises, by introducing various measures designed to harmonize working and family life, such as employment flexibility, etc., for both men and women. The Committee thanks the Government for this information. In its previous direct request, it had noted with interest Law No. 9 of 2 July 1992 respecting temporary measures to promote the reduction of working time. It noted that the objective of this law (harmonizing the reduction of working hours) had resulted in a general improvement in working conditions for all workers even though, as noted by the Government, this was not the actual purpose of the law. The purpose of the Convention is to address the issue of family responsibilities since the burden of these responsibilities on workers could maintain existing inequalities between the sexes, or create new inequalities between them. The preamble to the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), states that "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women". An improvement in the working conditions of all workers is therefore useful for the achievement of the aims of the Convention, since it allows men to increase their sharing of family responsibilities. In this respect, the Committee once again hopes that the Government will provide information in future reports on the application of this law in practice.

4.  Article 4.  The Committee notes the information concerning section 12(6) of the regulations issued under the law respecting minimum working conditions (No. 23 of 1947), under which labour inspectors shall issue the necessary instructions to employers respecting the obligation which has been imposed upon them since 1 April 1999 to take into account the needs of workers with fixed-term contracts to take parental and family leave. With reference to point 1 of this direct request, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether daily workers are covered by this provision.

5.  The Committee notes the various systems of crèches and of childcare developed and established under the law respecting the welfare of children.

6.  Article 6.  The Committee notes that information and public awareness campaigns are being undertaken for employers and workers. In particular, the Government refers to monthly information campaigns on "equality of opportunity between men and women" and "on the harmonization of work and families". The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the results of any surveys or studies which may have been undertaken to evaluate the impact of these campaigns on employers and workers and the effect that they have had on their attitudes.

7.  The Committee notes the recent adoption of the fundamental law to promote a society with the joint participation of men and women, No. 78 of 23 June 1999. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information in future reports on the application of this law in practice and on the activities of the Committee established under the above law. It would also be grateful to be provided in future with copies of the annual report prepared by the above Commission respecting the joint participation of men and women in society.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

1.  The Committee recalls its previous observation in which it noted the communication received from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) and the Government’s reply stating that it would respond to the concerns raised in its next report. Having indicated that it would examine these issues at this session, the Committee regrets to note that the Government has not supplied a report. In its communication JTUC-RENGO had expressed its concern over the lack of protection in Japanese law against termination of employment because of family responsibilities. According to JTUC-RENGO there is a difference between the protection afforded under Article 8 of the Convention and Japanese law. In addition, JTUC-RENGO has pointed out that the transfer of workers to remote working places is sometimes resisted by the workers concerned because of their family responsibilities. JTUC-RENGO considers it very important to tackle the problems of workers with family responsibilities when they are ordered to be transferred to other working places.

2.  The Committee notes that similar concerns have been raised in a lengthy and quite detailed communication dated 17 October 2000 from the Telecommunications Workers Union (TSUSHINROUSO) which has been forwarded to the Government on 3 November 2000 for any reply it may wish to make. Noting the close relationship between the matters raised by JTUC-RENGO and the recent communications received from TSUSHINROUSO, the Committee has decided to address all the issues raised in both communications at its next session. It hopes the Government will supply information so that its views may be taken into consideration in the Committee’s examination of the matter.

3.  The Committee also notes the communications dated 13 October 2000 from the Japan National Hospitals Workers’ Union concerning in-house childcare facilities at national hospitals, personnel transfers to distant workplaces, and no paid nursing care and childcare leave for wage-based workers. The Committee notes that one of the points concerns the same issue of transfers raised by the other communications set out above. Noting that the communication was sent to the Government for comment on 7 November 2000, the Committee will also examine these points at its next session.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report in reply to the matters raised in its previous direct request. It thanks the Government for the information provided in reply to its comments concerning Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, which were based on the observations made in a communication from the Tokyo Union of Community Workers (TUCW), the Committee notes the Government's statement that workers with daily contracts and workers engaged for a fixed term are excluded from the scope of the law respecting parental leave and family leave, since the nature of their contracts is incompatible with the leave provided, which may be of long duration. The Government repeats its explanation that it is the real nature and not the formal denomination of the contract which determines whether or not the worker benefits from the provisions of the above law. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the decision to grant such leave is left at the discretion of the employer. It also recalls that, in accordance with Article 2, the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to take into account the specific needs of daily workers with regard to their family responsibilities. It would also be grateful to be informed whether these workers benefit from other measures set out in the legislation for the harmonization of working and family life, such as social security, allowances for dependent children, etc. With regard to unorganized workers and workers in small enterprises, the Committee notes that the percentage of enterprises which have established parental and family leave is not lower for enterprises which do not have an organized trade union than for enterprises where there is a trade union. It also notes that workers are entitled to such leave, even where it is not envisaged in their enterprise rules.

2. The Committee notes the Government's explanation with regard to section 67 of the law respecting minimum working conditions, which provides for additional hours to care for a child under the age of 1 year.

3. Article 3. The Committee notes the Government's indication that entitlement to parental or family leave is envisaged for men and women without distinction in accordance with the law, as is the right to apply for a reduction in overtime hours. The Government also indicates that it is continuing its efforts to promote the concept of family-friendly enterprises, by introducing various measures designed to harmonize working and family life, such as employment flexibility, etc., for both men and women. The Committee thanks the Government for this information. In its previous direct request, it had noted with interest Law No. 9 of 2 July 1992 respecting temporary measures to promote the reduction of working time. It noted that the objective of this law (harmonizing the reduction of working hours) had resulted in a general improvement in working conditions for all workers even though, as noted by the Government, this was not the actual purpose of the law. The purpose of the Convention is to address the issue of family responsibilities since the burden of these responsibilities on workers could maintain existing inequalities between the sexes, or create new inequalities between them. The preamble to the Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 (No. 165), states that "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women". An improvement in the working conditions of all workers is therefore useful for the achievement of the aims of the Convention, since it allows men to increase their sharing of family responsibilities. In this respect, the Committee once again hopes that the Government will provide information in future reports on the application of this law in practice.

4. Article 4. The Committee notes the information concerning section 12(6) of the regulations issued under the law respecting minimum working conditions (No. 23 of 1947), under which labour inspectors shall issue the necessary instructions to employers respecting the obligation which has been imposed upon them since 1 April 1999 to take into account the needs of workers with fixed-term contracts to take parental and family leave. With reference to point 1 of this direct request, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether daily workers are covered by this provision.

5. The Committee notes the various systems of crèches and of childcare developed and established under the law respecting the welfare of children.

6. Article 6. The Committee notes that information and public awareness campaigns are being undertaken for employers and workers. In particular, the Government refers to monthly information campaigns on "equality of opportunity between men and women" and "on the harmonization of work and families". The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the results of any surveys or studies which may have been undertaken to evaluate the impact of these campaigns on employers and workers and the effect that they have had on their attitudes.

7. The Committee notes the recent adoption of the fundamental law to promote a society with the joint participation of men and women, No. 78 of 23 June 1999. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information in future reports on the application of this law in practice and on the activities of the Committee established under the above law. It would also be grateful to be provided in future with copies of the annual report prepared by the above Commission respecting the joint participation of men and women in society.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the communication dated 29 October 1999 received from the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) relating in particular to the application of Article 8 of the Convention concerning termination of employment of workers with family responsibilities. It also notes the Government's reply stating that it is currently examining the matters raised in the above communication so that it can respond to them in its next report. The Committee will examine these matters at its next session.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided in the Government's initial report and the attached relevant documentation. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, additional information on the points set out below.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. In response to the 1996 observation, based on a communication from the Tokyo Union of Community Workers (TUCW) alleging that part-time workers do not enjoy benefits provided for under national legislation, the Government's report indicates that this is due to the nature of the benefits in question, which consist of leaves of absence which may be granted for a relatively long period of time, up to a maximum of 12 months. The Government also indicates that, in this context, the substantive nature of the contract is taken into consideration, rather than its formal denomination, and that a worker with an automatically renewed fixed-term contract enjoys the above-referenced benefits on the same basis as workers with permanent contracts. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal framework (based on law or regulation) which guarantees the application of the Convention to all categories of workers. It also requests the Government to provide information concerning the other categories of workers mentioned in the TUCW communication, notably workers employed in small enterprises, non-unionized workers, part-time workers, as well as to indicate the measures envisaged to take the needs of these workers into account with regard to family responsibilities in light of Paragraph 21 of the Recommendation (see also paragraph 143 of the General Survey on workers with family responsibilities, ILO, 1993).

2. The Committee notes that section 67 of the Law on Minimum Conditions of Employment provides women workers, but not men workers, with supplementary rest periods to take care of a child. Considering that equality of opportunity and treatment cannot be fully realized without profound social reforms, in particular a more equitable distribution of family responsibilities (see paragraph 25 of the 1993 General Survey), the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it contemplates reviewing this provision.

3. Concerning the application of Article 3, the Committee notes the objectives of the national policy and the national legislation to integrate women into society as well as the measures intended to permit workers to harmonize work and family responsibilities. The Committee notes, however, that these measures do not fully meet the Convention's dual objective of creating equality of opportunity and treatment in employment between men and women with family responsibilities, on the one hand, and between men and women with family responsibilities and workers without such responsibilities, on the other. The Convention also deals with the issue of family responsibilities in so far as the burden of these responsibilities borne by workers could create or maintain existing inequalities between the sexes (see 1993 General Survey, paragraph 25). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on any national policy measures envisaged permitting both women and men to balance their work and family responsibilities. In this regard, it notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 9 of 2 July 1992 on temporary measures to promote the reduction of working hours in that it is a measure which improves general conditions for workers, particularly those of workers with family responsibilities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information concerning the application of this Act.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the assistance given to employers by the Bureau for the Inspection of Labour Standards, as provided for under section 12-6 of the implementing regulation of the Law on Minimum Conditions of Employment (No. 23 of 1947), and in accordance with Article 4(b) of the Convention.

5. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the proposed amendments establishing a new framework for the placement of children in childcare facilities in accordance with the wishes of the child's caregiver take into account the harmonization between the caregiver's work and family life.

6. Article 6 of the Convention. While noting the existence of informational campaigns to promote equality between men and women and the active participation of women in society, the Committee nonetheless observes that these campaigns still mainly focus on women. The Committee recalls that the initial goal of Convention No. 156 and Recommendation No. 165 is to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment for workers of both sexes with family responsibilities. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on these campaigns.

7. With regard to Article 7 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the practical application of sections 18 and 23 of the Family Leave Act, which provide that the State may grant assistance and support to employers with regard to re-employment, the establishment of childcare services and the provision of financial aid to workers with family responsibilities. It also requests the Government to indicate whether human resources development takes family responsibilities into account.

8. The Committee notes that, in relation to the application of Article 11 of the Convention, a number of committees and councils charged with discussing and developing industrial relations policies, including with regard to workers with family responsibilities, are composed of an equal number of representatives of workers, employers and members of the community. The Government is requested to provide, in its next report, information on the work and discussions undertaken by these committees and councils regarding workers with family responsibilities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the comments made in a communication received from the Tokyo Union of Community Workers which alleges that the Government has not taken sufficient steps to revise the relevant legislation and to apply the Convention. It states that, in particular, workers employed by small enterprises, unorganized workers and part-time workers are not in a situation to exercise certain rights provided under national legislation and the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to comment on the points raised in its first report on the Convention, which is due in 1997.