Definitive Report - Report No 308, November 1997

Case No 1897 (Japan) - Complaint date: 13-AUG-96 - Closed

Allegations: Restriction of legitimate trade union activities; frequent transfer of trade union leaders; refusal to bargain collectively with the union

1. 451. In a communication of 13 August 1996, the Japan National Hospital Workers' Union (JNHWU) presented a complaint of infringements of trade union rights against the Government of Japan. It submitted additional information in communications dated 19 September and 11 October 1996.
2. 452. The Government supplied its observations in a communication of 15 May 1997.
3. 453. Japan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 454. In its complaint, the Japan National Hospital Workers' Union Tokyo District Council (JNHWU) explains that in Japan there are 240 national hospitals and nursing homes nationwide. The JNHWU has branches at all of these medical institutions, and among the overall workforce of 53,000, 36,000 are union members. The membership of its Tokyo District Council is 2,400. The JNHWU alleges that these medical institutions are under attack by the Health and Welfare Ministry which wants to restrict the JNHWU's activities thereby weakening it. The various forms of attack waged by the Ministry originate in the fact that its members took part in strike action in 1991.
2. 455. The JNHWU then goes on to describe the various ways in which it is attacked by the Ministry. First of all, it points out that while Japanese legislation currently prohibits public servants from going on strike, it does provide for collective bargaining rights. However, national medical institutions began to reject collective bargaining from the second half of 1992. Whenever the union made a proposal, hospital officials would answer that the matter was not a subject for collective bargaining because it was an administrative matter. The JNHWU gives various examples to illustrate this point. For example, at the National Sanatorium of Murayama in April 1996, when the union suggested that pregnant workers be exempted from the night shift, the medical facility replied that this matter could not be the subject of negotiation since this system was well entrenched in legislation. Similarly, in 1996 the union requested that workers of the National Hospital of Oukura be paid overtime allowance in full, to which the medical facility responded that this was a budgetary matter and therefore could not be the subject of negotiation. When the union stressed the need to have windows and screen doors cleaned and to have corridors etc., waxed at least twice a year, as well as the need to increase the storage place for X-ray films at the National Hospital of Takada, the facility side responded that since these issues were of an administrative and managerial nature and not pertaining to working conditions, they were not open for negotiation. The JNHWU contends that as a result of this attitude in national medical institutions, collective bargaining has not been held at all in some hospitals for four years.
3. 456. The JNHWU then asserts that day-to-day union activities have been greatly restricted since December 1993 when the Ministry of Health and Welfare issued "an order of business improvement" to reinforce its management of labour. The Ministry ordered that all agreements previously concluded between management and labour and relating to trade union activities be cancelled. This act has had various adverse implications for the union. First of all, the use of hospital facilities for holding union meetings and carrying out other legitimate trade union activities has been greatly restricted. For example, the JNHWU points out that in March 1996 and in accordance with an orientation for new employees held by the hospital, the pediatrics branch of JNHWU made an application to use a conference room for the purpose of describing the union to the new employees. However, management rejected the application without giving any reasons. In the JNHWU's view, this was done to impede any increase in the number of union members. In addition, ever since the "order of business improvement" was issued, permission to use JNHWU's regular conference room is given on condition that only employees working in the facility attend the meeting. This means that JNHWU's trade union leaders who do not work in the facility concerned cannot attend union meetings. In another instance, when the regular conference of the National Cancer Centre branch of JNHWU was held in July 1996, management only allowed the use of the meeting room on condition that the union flag was not displayed, a display which had been previously allowed.
4. 457. Another attack on union activities has been the restriction on the places where JNHWU's bulletin boards can be put up, although the putting up of such boards had previously been the basis of an agreement between the management and the union. Since July 1996, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has given permission to the union to put up bulletin boards only where patients and their families cannot see them, and it has indicated that two or three such bulletin boards are largely sufficient in one facility. The JNHWU adds that although staff canteens are set up just for employees the putting up of bulletin boards in these canteens in the National Sanatorium Hospital of Tokyo and the National Centre of Neurology and Psychiatry were prohibited by management under the pretext that "patients might use the canteen". The JNHWU points out that since the National Sanatorium Hospital is about 200,000 square metres large, two bulletin boards is too few for employees to have the chance of seeing them.
5. 458. Further attacks on legitimate union activities include restrictions on the distribution and circulation of union news. The JNHWU contends that from 1994 the medical facilities introduce a requirement that all union news be distributed under a licensing system. Moreover, the union is prohibited from distributing union news directly in the workplace. Hence, the distribution of union news is only allowed before working hours at staff gates before employees go to their workplaces. The JNHWU stresses that in 24-hour medical institutions, working hours vary for the staff concerned. As a result, only a limited number of employees can receive union news.
6. 459. The JNHWU goes on to explain that legitimate trade union activities even outside the hospital vicinity are under attack. For example, when the Tokyo pediatrics branch of JNHWU held a protest rally at the front gate of the National Children's Hospital, the staff from the facility side, including the general manager of the hospital, had cameras and video cameras with them while they were watching the assembly. In the JNHWU's view, the cameras and video cameras were used, first of all, to intimidate the participants at the protest rally and secondly to check which employees were taking part in the protest rally with the aim of deterring them from undertaking such activities in the future. In March 1994, the National Cancer Centre branch of JNHWU and other regional groups, totalling about 70 people, participated in a petition to the director of the hospital for the improvement of conditions at the workplace. Although the participants simply handed the petition to the hospital staff, the facility side threatened the employees of the National Cancer Centre and took photographs of those who signed the petition. Similarly, in 1995 when the National Cancer Centre branch of JNHWU distributed leaflets to passers-by at the entrance of Higashi Ginza subway station, located about 500 metres from the hospital, the facility side dispatched staff to check who the participants were and what was being distributed, as well as to threaten union members.
7. 460. In addition, the JNHWU contends that the systematic transfer of union executives to other hospitals is carried out in an attempt to weaken the union. Previously, the Ministry of Health and Welfare had given prior notice of about two months to an employee who was to be transferred so as to ensure that the employee had a say in the matter. Now, and especially after the Ministry issued the "order of business improvement" in December 1993, prior notice is no longer given to the employees concerned. The JNHWU goes on to give examples of such transfers. In April 1995, the chairperson of JNHWU's Tokyo District Council, was compelled to be transferred to another workplace. In September 1995, the chairperson of JNHWU's Saigata branch was compulsorily transferred to a different workplace. Although the union requested that the transfer order be reversed, the Ministry's Medical Bureau refused to do so. Similarly, in April 1996, the Secretary General of JNHWU's National Cancer Centre branch was transferred, which adversely affected the operations of the branch.
8. 461. Lastly, the JNHWU points out that the Ministry took punitive measures against employees who went on strike in November 1991. The JNHWU then describes the course of events leading to this strike which, it stresses, was the last resort. It explains that as public servants are prohibited from going on strike in Japan, the National Personnel Authority (NPA) was set up to compensate for this prohibition. The NPA is primarily responsible for taking administrative measures concerning wages and all other working conditions of public servants including hospital employees. As a result, in April 1963 the JNHWU requested the NPA to issue a decision on its demand for certain administrative measures to be taken relating to the night duty of nursing personnel. The JNHWU's demand was that night duty should be limited to six times a month, the number of beds assigned to one shift unit should be reduced to 40 and more than two nurses should be allocated per unit. On 24 May 1965, the NPA issued its decision that night duties for nurses should be limited to eight times a month, and the one-nurse shift should be stopped. However, the Health Ministry did not implement the NPA decision. According to a survey conducted by the Health Ministry in October 1989, 24 years after the issuance of the NPA's decision, the average number of night duty was still nine a month. Under these circumstances, the cases of chronic fatigue, abnormal pregnancy, and death due to overwork were observed among the personnel, nurses in particular. From February to May 1991, in accordance with the NPA decision, the directors of over 200 national hospitals asked the Health Minister to implement concrete measures for substantially increasing posts of nurses so as to limit the night duty of nurses to eight times a month at national hospitals and sanatoriums. The Health Minister did not respond to this request.
9. 462. In September 1991, the JNHWU, in order to have its demand met, decided to organize on 13 November, meetings to be held simultaneously in national hospitals all over the country that would be extended partially into working hours. It tried to negotiate with the Health Ministry to hold, before 13 November, negotiations between it and the Head of the Health and Medical Care Division of the Health Ministry which was in charge of national hospitals and sanatoriums. The Health Ministry did not accept this proposal. The JNHWU had intended to decide whether it would extend the meetings into working hours or end them by 8.30 a.m., the time when day duty regularly starts, on the basis of the negotiations with the Health Ministry. But as the Ministry refused to hold negotiations, the JNHWU instructed its branches to hold the above-mentioned meetings. These meetings were held at 239 national health institutions throughout the country and were attended by about 25,000 union members in total. The meetings began at about 8.00 a.m. and ended in some institutions at 8.30 a.m. and in others, at 8.57 a.m. Prior to the holding of these simultaneous meetings, the JNHWU had sent instructions to its branches to ensure that essential services would be provided during the strike period without interruption. The JNHWU stresses that there was no refusal of emergency patients and no negative impact on outgoing patients during this period.
10. 463. Nevertheless, in March 1992 the Ministry took punitive measures against 3,090 persons. These included strict warning (Genjyu-Syobun) for 2,518 union members on the grounds that they did not begin work at the regular time; admonition (Kunkoku) for 399 union branch officers; and disciplinary punishment (Cyokaikaikoku) for 147 union branch leaders and 26 national trade union leaders. In addition, the Ministry imposed the following economic sanctions. First of all, it imposed a three-month postponement of a regular pay-rise for 173 persons. Thus, the regular pay-rise for these persons is delayed for three months every time until the age of 57 when regular pay-rises stops. The JNHWU adds that hospital staff usually receive a bonus for diligence twice a year in June and December. However, 2,917 employees (those subjected to a warning) had a cut in their June bonuses. The JNHWU stresses that other losses incurred will affect the pension and retirement allowances of these employees. It is therefore evident that the Ministry, for a strike which lasted less than 30 minutes, inflicted economic damage upon the employees that is far more severe than a mere salary cut, and which is not even provided for by law.
11. 464. The JNHWU concludes by stating that the NPA which is made up of three personnel management officials who are appointed by the Cabinet does not at all reflect the opinions of the employees and their unions and is not impartial. In addition, its recommendations or decisions do not have the function of arbitration awards, and are not binding on the parties concerned. Moreover, when they are made they are implemented neither rapidly nor completely. As for the recommendation procedure of the NPA, the personnel and their unions have no room in participating in this procedure. Also, while the personnel can make demands for administrative measures to be taken, they are not allowed to take part in the process in which the NPA, in response to those demands, decides on the measures it considers necessary. As a result of this, Japanese public servants are denied the right to strike without being given any compensatory guarantees, which clearly constitutes a violation of freedom of association principles.

B. The Government's reply

1. 465. In its communication dated 15 May 1997, the Government states that due to the recent improvement of public and private medical institutions, adequate medical service is almost guaranteed in quantitative terms in Japan. Currently, the number of beds at national hospitals and sanatoriums (83,115 beds) accounts for about 5 per cent of the total number of beds in the country's hospitals (1,669,951 beds). Under the circumstances, basic and general medical services in local communities are provided by public and private medical institutions, while national hospitals are supposed to play roles suitable for national medical institutions, offering "advanced or special medical services to wide areas" carrying out "clinical research" and "education and training". Under the present severe financial situation however, it is difficult to provide all the national hospitals with enough people and facilities to carry out the above activities. Therefore, the best way to put together management resources is through such measures as the abolition, integration and transfer to non-national entities and allocate human resources resulting from the reorganization to surviving facilities as needed to strengthen their functions. This is what the Government has judged unavoidable for Japan's improved medical services in the twenty-first century. The Government believes the reorganization policy is based on the people's consensus because it is included in the "Administrative Reform Program" adopted by the Cabinet on 25 December 1996. Moreover, the "Law on Special Measures Accompanying the Reorganization of National Hospitals" stipulating measures for the smooth promotion of reorganization has been enacted. As for the employment and other working conditions of the staff in the wake of the reorganization, the Government is holding negotiations in good faith in accordance with the relevant laws in order to ensure the smooth enforcement of the reorganization and is determined to continue to do so.
2. 466. Turning to the JNHWU's complaint, the Government first of all points out that the right to organize is guaranteed for clerical national public servants including the national hospital staff under the National Public Service Law (section 108-2). When a registered employee organization proposes to negotiate in accordance with the law with the competent authorities on employee remuneration, working hours or other conditions of work or, in connection therewith, on matters concerning lawful activities including social and welfare activities, the authorities concerned shall respond to such proposals (section 108-5, of the National Public Service Law). The Government is also asked not to reject arbitrarily a similar request from an unregistered employee organization in a report of the Advisory Council on the Public Service Personnel System and does not do so. Such negotiations are also conducted in accordance with the law at national hospitals. The JNHWU was established on 1 December 1948, and has a head office, local chapters (234), regional councils (eight) and district councils (50). Negotiations are carried out between the head office and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, regional councils and regional medical affairs bureaux, and local chapters and facilities. Up to March, such negotiations, including those by the head office and local chapters, had been conducted four times this year. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is now instructing regional (local) medical affairs bureaux and facilities regarding the conduct of such negotiations.
3. 467. Turning to the allegation that the authorities are rejecting the use of conference rooms by organizations of workers for their own gatherings and conferences, the Government responds that the land and buildings of national hospitals are administrative assets (official assets (assets the State offers or decides to offer for its business or enterprise, or for residential purposes of its employees)) as stipulated under 1 of item 2, section 3, of the National Assets Law. The land and buildings of national hospitals are managed by their managers under the National Assets Law. Item 3, section 18, of the law stipulates that "use of and earning of profits from administrative assets can be permitted as far as they do not hinder their original use and purposes". The land and buildings of national hospitals too can be used as far as such use does not hinder their original use and purposes. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is dealing with the use of national hospital land and buildings for employee organization activities fairly and sincerely in line with the above law.
4. 468. The Government then addresses the allegation that workers' collective activities are banned during their working hours. The Government stresses that public servants are obligated to give their full attention to their professional duties under section 101 of the National Public Service Law. Public servants actively fulfil their duties as servants for the people as a whole by providing their services and, therefore, it is the most fundamental duty among public servants' service duties to devote themselves fully to their duties during working hours. As a result, public servants are not allowed to carry out workers' collective activities during their working hours.
5. 469. As regards the allegation that members of workers' organizations are being transferred nationwide in a bid to weaken such organizations, the Government indicates that transfers of workers at national hospitals is implemented only when necessary by a person with appointive power. Such transfers are based on merit, and factors such as the employee's qualifications, ability and experience are duly taken into account. No personnel transfer has been carried out with the intent of weakening workers' organizations. It is prohibited under section 108-7, of the National Public Service Law (Prohibition of adverse treatment) and article 2 of the National Personnel Authority Rule 8-12 (appointment and dismissal of workers) to adversely treat a worker on the ground that he is a member of an employee organization, or that he has attempted to organize or join an employee organization, or that he has performed a justifiable act in an employee organization.
6. 470. Turning to the issue of strikes and disciplinary action, the Government states that on 13 November 1991, the JNHWU held a workshop rally at a national hospital from around 8.00 a.m. to 8.57 a.m. with the participation of some 25,000 members of 237 chapters. At least 2,934 workers did not work for up to 27 minutes although they were on duty that day. This hindered the normal operation of business and falls under acts of dispute prohibited under item 2, section 98, of the National Public Service Law. Thus 173 people - 26 head office executives and 147 chapter chiefs - suffered the administration of reprimands based on section 82(1) of the National Public Service Law on 19 March 1992, for attempting, conspiring to effect, instigating or inciting an act of dispute in violation of the National Public Service Law. The Government adds that disciplinary punishment stipulated by the National Public Service Law consists of four measures - dismissal, suspension from duty, reduction in pay and administration of a reprimand. Although it is alleged in the complaint that the punishment involved pay cuts covering 3,500 people, the Government states that the punishment did not involve any deduction in pay. Moreover, other workers were not punished but received an admonition which did not have the nature of punishment.
7. 471. The Government then addresses the allegation that the strike was carried out in protest against a failure to implement the 1965 adjudication by the National Personnel Authority (NPA) and that even an illegal walkout is permissible as the JNHWU recognizes that such a situation is illegal. The Government emphasizes that strikes are banned for national public employees by law in Japan and it is thus natural that those who participate in strikes are given appropriate disciplinary punishment as stipulated by law. The Ministry of Health and Welfare has been complying with the 1965 adjudication by the NPA and the Government believes nothing illegal is involved in the Ministry's action. More specifically, in April 1963, the Government indicates that the JNHWU submitted to the NPA a "Request for Administrative Measures concerning Restrictions on Night Work of Nurses, Practical Nurses and Midwives". The NPA made its adjudication for the request in May 1965. As for the number of night work days, it said that "it is a reasonable tentative goal to make the monthly average night work days for nurses and others working on the night shift at facilities under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and Welfare about eight days" and pointed out that "if it is difficult to enforce the above target number of night work days immediately, systematic efforts should be made to achieve that goal". Regarding posting two or more people on the night shift, it said "for nursing units where a one-man night shift is considered enough, it is necessary to take measures to facilitate treatment and communications in preparation for contingencies and to give special consideration to rest facility". It also noted: "As for other nursing units, it is considered inadvisable to abolish one-man night shifts all at once as it creates other problems, such as a rise in the number of night work days per month, unless nurses and others are increased considerably. Therefore, systematic efforts should be made toward the abolition of one-man night shifts ... and at the same time considering its impact on the number of night work days and other related matters". The Government underlines that "about eight days a month" is a tentative goal to be reached according to the NPA. Based on this adjudication by the NPA, the Ministry of Health and Welfare acknowledged that it was a most important matter to achieve "a night shift of two people or more and the number of night work days of less than eight days a month" at national hospitals and has been making its utmost efforts to that end. At a time when the Government is strictly curbing the growth of its staff as a whole, it boosted the number of nurses by 11,502 from fiscal 1968 to fiscal 1996. As a result, the average night shift days of nurses at national hospitals has improved, to 8.0 days a month per nurse as of October 1996. A night shift of more than one worker has almost been achieved, too. The Government thinks that this attitude fully respects the above adjudication by the NPA.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 472. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern the refusal by management to bargain collectively with the Japan National Hospital Workers' Union (JNHWU) at some of its branches in national hospitals and nursing homes; various restrictions on legitimate trade union activities; the systematic transfer of union leaders; and acts of reprisal taken against union leaders and members who participated in strike action.
2. 473. The JNHWU contends that although national legislation provides for the collective bargaining rights of public servants, national medical institutions were not willing to negotiate with the union from 1992 onwards. The JNHWU then goes on to give various examples of instances where officials at different hospitals refused to engage in talks with the union on certain issues. The Committee notes that, while the Government does not comment on the specific examples provided by the JNHWU where collective bargaining was rejected, it categorically refutes the latter's assertion that national medical institutions do not engage in collective bargaining and that collective bargaining has not been held in some hospitals for four years. In fact, according to the Government, negotiations between the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the JNHWU's head office and local chapters have been conducted four times already this year. It would appear to the Committee, from the complainant's statements, that certain matters seem to be excluded from collective bargaining. In this respect, the Committee considers, like the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, that measures taken unilaterally by the authorities to restrict the scope of negotiable issues are often incompatible with Convention No. 98; discussions for the preparation, on a voluntary basis, of guidelines for collective bargaining are a particularly appropriate method to resolve these difficulties (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, para. 250).
3. 474. As regards the allegation that day-to-day union activities, including the use of hospital facilities for holding union meetings, have been greatly restricted since December 1993, the Government responds that the land and buildings of national hospitals are administrative assets that can be used for employee organization activities as far as such use does not hinder their original use and purpose, under the terms of the National Assets Law. The Government adds that it is dealing with this issue fairly, in line with the above Law. However, the Committee notes the JNHWU's statement - which is not refuted by the Government - that ever since the "order of business improvement" was issued by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, permission to use the JNHWU's regular conference room is given on condition that only employees working in the facility attend the meeting; this means that the JNHWU's trade union leaders who do not work in the facility concerned cannot attend union meetings. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the principle that Convention No. 135 calls on governments to ensure that such facilities in the undertaking as may be appropriate in order to enable workers' representatives to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently are supplied, and in a manner as not to impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 950). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure in future that representatives of the JNHWU are supplied such facilities in the workplace as may be appropriate in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and to ensure that full-time union officials are granted reasonable access to the workplace.
4. 475. The Committee further notes the JNHWU's contention that other legitimate trade union activities such as the display of union flags at meetings, the putting up of its bulletin boards and the distribution and circulation of union news, have come under attack by the Ministry. According to the JNHWU, legitimate union activities outside the vicinity of the workplace are also being threatened. It gives two examples of situations where hospital officials were dispatched to take photos and videos of JNHWU members who participated in protest rallies, signed petitions and distributed union leaflets, with a view to deterring them from undertaking similar activities in the future. The Committee notes that the Government does not refute these allegations but states instead that employees of national hospitals are not allowed to carry out union duties during their working hours since it is their most fundamental duty as public servants to devote themselves fully to their duties. First of all, it is the Committee's understanding that one of the points of contention in the case at hand is that certain trade union activities are restricted, and not that they are restricted during working hours only. Moreover, as regards the issue of public servants, the Committee would recall that the standards contained in Convention No. 87 apply to all workers "without distinction whatsoever"; organizations of public employees should be able to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 212 and 214). The Committee considers that the display of union flags at meetings in the workplace, the putting up of union bulletin boards, the distribution of union news and leaflets, the signing of petitions and participation in union rallies constitute legitimate trade union activities which organizations of workers, including employees of national medical institutions, should be given reasonable opportunities to carry out in accordance with Article 3 of Convention No. 87. It would therefore request the Government to ensure that the competent authorities refrain in future from having recourse to measures which would restrict the exercise of these rights by JNHWU members and officials employed at national medical institutions.
5. 476. As regards the allegation that, since the issuance of the "order of business improvement", union executives are being systematically transferred to other hospitals in an attempt to weaken the union, the Government responds that no personnel transfer has been carried out with the intent of weakening workers' organizations but rather that such transfers are based on an employee's qualifications, ability and experience. Moreover, personnel transfers, as alleged by the complainant, are strictly prohibited by law. The Committee for its part would recall that if doubts should arise as to the real motives for such transfers or if a complaint of alleged anti-union discrimination is made, the competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention (see Digest, op. cit., para. 754).
6. 477. Finally, the JNHWU contends that the punitive measures taken by the Ministry of Health and Welfare against employees who went on strike in November 1991 are unjustified because, amongst other things, they include economic sanctions which are not provided for by law and which will affect the employees concerned during the full course of their employment as well as their retired lives. The Government, for its part, indicates that the disciplinary measures taken against the employees concerned were fully justified since the right to strike is prohibited for public servants, and these measures, in any event, did not include any economic sanctions. In this respect, the Committee would recall that it has held that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (Digest, op. cit., para. 526). The Committee has further considered the hospital sector to be an essential service in the strict sense of the term (see Digest, op. cit., para. 544). However, the Committee has also considered that the measures taken by the authorities to ensure the performance of essential services should not be out of proportion to the ends pursued or lead to excesses (see Digest, op. cit., para. 600).
7. 478. Moreover, the Committee has also held that where the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in certain essential undertakings or services, adequate protection should be given to the workers to compensate for the limitation thereby placed on their freedom of action with regard to disputes affecting such undertakings and services. As regards the nature of appropriate guarantees in cases where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services and the public service, restrictions on the right to strike should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 546 and 547).
8. 479. In this case, the Committee notes that the National Personnel Authority (NPA) was set up to compensate for the prohibition on the right to strike of public servants and that it is primarily responsible for taking administrative measures relating to wages and all other working conditions of public servants including hospital employees. Moreover, the Committee notes that further to the JNHWU's demand for certain administrative measures to be taken relating to the night duty of nursing personnel, the NPA issued a decision thereon on 24 May 1965. The Committee notes, however, that the NPA decision was still not implemented in November 1991 despite several requests to this effect from the complainant and other parties to the Ministry of Health and Welfare. According to the complainant, it was the refusal of the Health Ministry to take concrete measures to implement the NPA decision which drove it to undertake strike action in 1991. The Government, for its part, acknowledges that despite its utmost efforts to speed up matters, the Ministry of Health and Welfare was able to implement the NPA decision only in 1996. The Committee observes that it has already examined the issue of the non-implementation of the NPA's recommendations in a previous case concerning Japan (see 222nd Report (Case No. 1165), paras. 153-169),and that this issue has also been raised by the Committee of Experts in several observations, including those of 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1987 (see reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III, Part 4A of 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1987). The Committee therefore would reiterate its previous recommendation pertaining to this issue; it expresses the firm hope that future recommendations of the NPA will be fully and promptly implemented, thereby ensuring to the public employees concerned a measure of compensation for the restrictions placed on their trade union rights as regards collective bargaining and the right to strike.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 480. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to ensure in future that representatives of the Japan National Hospital Workers' Union (JNHWU) are supplied such facilities in the workplace as may be appropriate in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and to ensure that full-time union officials are granted reasonable access to the workplace.
   • (b) Recalling that the display of union flags at meetings in the workplace, the putting up of union bulletin boards, the distribution of union news and leaflets, the signing of petitions and participation in union rallies constitute legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the competent authorities refrain in future from having recourse to measures which would restrict the reasonable exercise of these rights by JNHWU members and officials employed at national medical institutions in the country.
   • (c) The Committee expresses the firm hope that future recommendations of the NPA will be fully and promptly implemented, thereby ensuring to the public employees concerned a measure of compensation for the restrictions placed on their trade union rights as regards collective bargaining and the right to strike.