Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 351, Novembre 2008

Cas no 2304 (Japon) - Date de la plainte: 14-OCT. -03 - Clos

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

1. 107. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the arrest and detention of trade union officers and members, massive searches of trade union offices and residences of trade union leaders, and the confiscation of trade union property, at its June 2007 meeting. The Committee noted that the compensation claim against the Government brought by the Japan Railway Welfare Association (JRWA) had been partially recognized and partially dismissed by the Tokyo District Court, and that the action brought against the Government by the complainant, the Japan Confederation of Railway Workers’ Unions (JRU) for compensation based on state liability had been dismissed by the same court. Further noting that both cases were now before the Tokyo High Court on appeal, the Committee requested the Government to transmit copies of the High Court’s decisions once they were handed down; it also requested the Government to provide its observations on the complainant’s allegations concerning a 2005 search in which over 2,000 basic union documents were seized and still yet to be returned [see 346th Report, paras 101–108].
2. 108. In its communication of 22 May 2007, the complainant indicates that, the day after the 15 February 2007 raid of its premises by the Tokyo police [see 346th Report, para. 103], it had organized a press conference to criticize the undue search and refute the allegations of embezzlement involving JRU-related organizations that had prompted the raid’s organization, as well as the confiscation of numerous union documents over the course of the raid. Immediately following the press conference, the police applied for a writ and, on 19 February 2007, conducted searches at the residences of JRU officers, including one who had criticized the police at the press conference; the complainant states that these searches were in retaliation for the holding of the press conference.
3. 109. The complainant states that over the past four and a half years, five cases had been brought against it, of which two had been dropped by the prosecutor. Additionally 27 people had been identified as suspected of wrongdoing, 175 locations had been searched and 5,686 items of property had been confiscated. On 9 April 2007, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) sent papers to the prosecutor concerning three of four alleged suspects in the embezzlement case noted in its previous examinations of the case [see for example, 346th Report, para. 106]. The complainant adds in this regard that the statute of limitations applicable to two of the suspects has expired. Furthermore, although more than two years have passed and more than 2,000 union documents were confiscated, the prosecution has not brought an indictment against the alleged suspects, demonstrating that the police investigations had been unfounded.
4. 110. In April 2007, several documents were submitted to the Tokyo District Court as evidence by a journalist in a libel suit. The documents, composed in 1997, indicate that the MPD assumed an extremist group had infiltrated the JRU and diverted union funds into its pockets; they were given by an unidentified source possessing “investigative authority” to the journalist mentioned above, who in turn wrote a series of articles labelling the JRU as a “terrorist” organization. The police have refused to make the said documents public; they therefore have not been subject to verification. The complainant further indicates that on 27 April 2007 the 59th trial of the Urawa Train Depot case was held. The Tokyo District Court closed the case following final arguments by the defence attorneys and a final statement by the defendants, and judgement is to be rendered on 17 July 2007.
5. 111. In its communication of 7 January 2008, the complainant states that the seven defendants in the Urawa Train Depot case were convicted in July 2007 for the crime of coercion (the defendants were accused of intimidating a member of their union 14 times from January to June 2001, thus making him secede from the union on 28 February 2001 and resign from his job in the East Japan Railway Company on 31 July of the same year). In its decision the Tokyo District Court concluded, inter alia, that the individual who was deemed to have been coerced by the defendants to leave the East Japan Railway Workers’ Union (JREU), an affiliate of the complainant, wished to remain a member of the union in spite of his reluctance to participate in the union’s activities. The Court further determined, arbitrarily, that a number of acts — including union consultations that were intended to persuade the individual concerned to desist from acting against the union and its policies, critical words aimed at the said individual during union meetings, and a verbal confrontation between the latter and union members in the bathroom — all constituted “intimidation” and resulted in his resignation from the union. The defendants immediately appealed the District Court’s decision, and the case would subsequently be heard by the Tokyo High Court.
6. 112. Following their conviction, six of the seven defendants were dismissed by their employer, the JR East Company, on grounds that convicted workers disturb worksite order and considerably ruin the company’s credibility. In view of the defendants’ appeal of their conviction, the complainant maintains that the dismissals run counter to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
7. 113. As concerns the criminal investigations of the complainant, of the four cases in which papers were filed with the public prosecutor, three have been dropped and the statute of limitations applicable to the remaining one has expired. The fact that no prosecutions have been brought forward demonstrates that the investigations were unfounded. The complainant further indicates that, in the suits for damages for the confiscation of thousands of union documents over the course of these investigations, it was revealed that an investigator had leaked secret documents of the MPD to a magazine reporter. The said documents indicate that the MPD had attempted to claim that a far-left group, the “Kakumaru-ha”, had penetrated the JRU; on the basis of these documents the reporter subsequently wrote a series of stories accusing the JRU of terrorism. The complainant contends that, although the MPD denies the existence of these documents, clearly it had manipulated information and created a pretext for conducting criminal investigations with the intention of undermining the JRU.
8. 114. The complainant asserts that the Tokyo High Court, in hearing the appeal of the defendants in the Urawa Train Depot case, must take into consideration the principle of the right to organize. It asserts moreover that the JR East Company’s dismissal of six of the defendants should be rescinded, and that the police must refrain from manipulating information in order to justify the conduct of criminal investigations intended to undermine the union.
9. 115. In its communication of 1 September 2008, the Government indicates that on 17 July 2007 the Tokyo District Court found the defendants in the Urawa Train Depot case guilty of coercion and handed down a suspended sentence. The defence appealed the judgement to the Tokyo High Court on the same day; the appeal was currently pending. The Government also states that the prosecutor would return all items confiscated further to this case at an appropriate time in the proceedings. Furthermore, in relation to the Urawa Train Depot case the JREU had initiated four legal actions against the Government and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) for state liability for compensation. These were currently being heard in the Tokyo District Court.
10. 116. As concerns the state liability for compensation claims brought by the JRWA and the JRU, respectively, the Government indicates that the Tokyo High Court dismissed the JRWA’s appeal and reversed the defendants’ loss in the original trial. The JRWA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on 27 February 2008; the appeal was currently pending. As concerns the compensation claim brought by the complainant JRU, the Government indicates that the Tokyo High Court dismissed the JRU’s appeal on 29 November 2007, and that the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the JRU’s appeal of the Tokyo High Court’s decision on 5 June 2008: the decision has therefore become final.
11. 117. As concerns the investigations of the JRU for possible embezzlement, the Government states that the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office decided in April 2008 to suspend prosecution of the suspects in this matter. Moreover, all items confiscated further to these investigations have been returned.
12. 118. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant and the Government. With respect to the various legal proceedings, the Committee notes, firstly, that on 17 July 2007 the Tokyo District Court found the seven defendants in the Urawa Train Depot case guilty of coercion and handed down a suspended sentence; the defendants subsequently appealed their conviction to the Tokyo High Court. The Committee trusts that the Tokyo High Court will bear in mind the principles of freedom of association in reviewing this case. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principle of freedom of speech within the framework of the exercise of legitimate union activity. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the appeal and to provide a copy of the Tokyo High Court’s decision as soon as it is handed down. Further noting however that, in spite of the appeal pending before the Tokyo High Court, six of the seven defendants have been dismissed by the JR East Company on grounds that convicted workers disturb worksite order and harm the company’s credibility, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures for these dismissals to be reviewed once the Tokyo High Court’s decision has been rendered.
13. 119. The Committee notes that on 29 November 2007 the Tokyo High Court dismissed the complainant JRU’s appeal in the latter’s state liability for compensation suit, and that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Tokyo High Court judgement on 5 June 2008. The Tokyo High Court also dismissed the JRWA’s appeal in the latter’s state liability for compensation suit on 14 February 2008, and the JRWA’s appeal of the Tokyo High Court decision is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in the suit brought by the JRU, as soon as it is handed down, as well as to provide a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision on the JRWA’s appeal.
14. 120. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the 19 February 2007 searches of the residences of JRU officers were undertaken in retaliation for holding a press conference to criticize the 15 February 2007 raid of JRU premises. Further noting the Government’s indications that the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to suspend the prosecution of the suspects in the embezzlement investigations by April 2008, and that all items confiscated in connection with these investigations have been returned, the Committee trusts that any future judicial procedures concerning the JRU and its officers will be undertaken in such a manner so as not to interfere with the free exercise of trade union activities.