Explanation of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems in Japanese Labor Law

In corporate management, ensuring the safety and health of employees is not merely an ethical imperative. It forms the foundation that supports the continuity and growth of a business and is also a significant legal obligation. Japanese labor law has established two main legal frameworks to achieve this goal. The first is the broad and comprehensive ‘duty of care for safety,’ which underlies all employment relationships. This fundamental principle mandates that employers take necessary precautions to ensure the safety of workers’ lives and bodies. The second is the ‘Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act,’ which translates this principle into specific codes of conduct. This law obligates the establishment of particular management systems, appointment of experts, and the establishment of organizational decision-making processes, according to the size and type of the workplace. These two frameworks complement each other, and formal compliance with one is not sufficient without the other. For example, even if all the procedures stipulated by the Industrial Safety and Health Act are met, failure to take appropriate measures against foreseeable specific dangers could result in a violation of the broader duty of care for safety. Therefore, understanding this dual structure is the first step in essential risk management for conducting business in Japan. This article will first overview the legal basis and scope of the fundamental duty of care for safety, then detail the specific safety and health management systems set out by the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and finally, from a professional perspective, explain the legal risks companies face if they neglect these obligations.

The Fundamental Duty of Employers: The Obligation of Safety Consideration Under Japanese Law

In the realm of Japanese labor law, the most fundamental duty that employers owe to their workers is the “obligation of safety consideration.” This duty is explicitly stipulated in Article 5 of the Japanese Labor Contract Act. The article states, “Employers shall, in accordance with the labor contract, take necessary consideration to ensure that workers can perform their work while securing their life, body, and other aspects of safety” . This obligation applies to all workers engaged in an employment contract with a company, regardless of employment status, including full-time employees, contract employees, and part-time workers . Furthermore, the “life, body, and other aspects of safety” protected under this obligation are interpreted to include not only physical safety but also mental health .  

This obligation of safety consideration, although codified by the Japanese Labor Contract Act enacted in 2008, has been established through precedents set by Japanese courts long before its formal inclusion in the law. Two particularly important Supreme Court decisions serve as foundational cases for this duty.

Firstly, there is the Supreme Court decision dated February 25, 1975 (commonly known as the “Ground Self-Defense Force Case”). In this case, the responsibility of the state (as the employer) was questioned following the death of a Self-Defense Force member in a vehicle accident during official duties. The Supreme Court explicitly recognized for the first time that the state has an obligation to consider the protection of the life and health of public servants from danger . This judgment established the basic concept of the obligation of safety consideration, which involves protecting against dangers in the physical work environment.  

Secondly, the Supreme Court decision on April 10, 1984 (commonly known as the “Kawagi Case”) is significant. In this incident, an employee on overnight duty was killed by a burglar who broke into the workplace. The Supreme Court ruled that the company had an obligation to take necessary safety measures against such external dangers, even those caused by third parties, and recognized a violation of the obligation of safety consideration .  

As these cases illustrate, the obligation of safety consideration is a very broad and dynamic duty that demands employers take appropriate measures against all foreseeable dangers that threaten the physical and mental health of workers, not only preventing accidents during work but also addressing harassment, health impairments due to overwork, and even criminal acts from external sources.

Specific Safety and Health Management Systems Defined by the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act

The Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act specifies how employers should concretely fulfill the comprehensive principle of safety considerations mentioned earlier. This law establishes a framework for systematic and organizational management of safety and health at the workplace. At the core of this framework are the professionals whose appointment is mandated depending on the size and type of the workplace, and the committees that serve as decision-making bodies. This structure acts as both the ‘execution force’ and the ‘command center’ to transform abstract obligations into concrete actions.

Experts at the Core of Management Systems

The Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act obligates the appointment of multiple managers with specialized knowledge to ensure safety and health standards in the workplace. These experts manage risks from their respective fields of expertise and form the technical core responsible for protecting the safety and health of workers.

The General Safety and Health Manager is appointed based on Article 10 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act and is the highest responsible person who oversees the overall safety and health operations of the workplace. Typically, individuals with the authority to substantially manage the execution of the business, such as factory managers or worksite managers, assume this role. The obligation to appoint varies by industry, with the threshold for the number of workers regularly employed being, for example, 100 or more in forestry and construction, 300 or more in manufacturing, and 1000 or more in other industries. The main duties of the General Safety and Health Manager include directing safety managers and health managers, developing accident prevention plans, implementing safety and health education, and managing health examinations.

Safety Managers are appointed under Article 11 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act as experts who manage technical matters related to safety. This position is mandatory for workplaces in specific industries with relatively high risks of labor accidents, such as construction and manufacturing, where the number of workers regularly employed is 50 or more. Safety Managers must meet professional qualification requirements, such as graduating from a science course at a university and having at least two years of practical experience. Their main duties include patrolling the workplace, inspecting the safety of equipment and work methods, and implementing immediate preventive measures when dangers are detected.

Health Managers are appointed under Article 12 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act as experts who manage technical matters related to hygiene, namely the prevention of health impairments among workers and the hygienic improvement of the workplace environment. In contrast to Safety Managers, who are limited to specific industries, the appointment of Health Managers is mandatory for all workplaces, regardless of industry, where the number of workers regularly employed is 50 or more. To become a Health Manager, one must have a national qualification as a health manager. Their main duties include conducting at least weekly patrols of the workplace, taking measures to prevent health impairments among workers when there is a risk of harm due to facilities, work methods, or hygienic conditions.

Occupational Physicians are appointed under Article 13 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act as doctors who provide guidance and advice from a professional standpoint on the health management of workers. Similar to Health Managers, the appointment of Occupational Physicians is mandatory for all workplaces, regardless of industry, where the number of workers regularly employed is 50 or more. Occupational Physicians support the maintenance of workers’ health through measures based on the results of health examinations, workplace patrols, and interviews with workers. Employers have a duty to respect the recommendations of Occupational Physicians.

The obligation to appoint these experts, particularly the threshold of 50 workers, holds significant meaning. When a business expands and the number of employees reaches 50, the obligation to appoint both a Health Manager and an Occupational Physician arises simultaneously, regardless of the industry. This is a legal turning point that should elevate the company’s safety and health management system to a higher level, and managers need to plan their organizational strategies with this threshold in mind.

Comparison of Obligations to Appoint Safety and Health Professionals Under Japanese Law

The obligations to appoint safety officers, health officers, and occupational physicians, as previously explained, are based on different requirements. To clearly understand these differences, the key points are organized in the table below. This table will assist in determining which professional appointment obligations your business site is subject to in Japan.

As the table indicates, the obligation to appoint a safety officer is limited to specific industries, whereas the obligations to appoint health officers and occupational physicians are universally imposed on all business sites with 50 or more workers in Japan.

Organizational Decision-Making and Monitoring: Safety Committees and Health Committees Under Japanese Law

Under the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act, in addition to appointing experts, there is a mandatory requirement to establish committees that reflect the opinions of workers and systematically investigate and deliberate on matters related to safety and health. These committees serve as a platform where management, on-site workers, and experts come together to make critical decisions regarding workplace safety and health.

The Safety Committee, based on Article 17 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act, investigates and deliberates on basic measures for the prevention of worker hazards. The obligation to establish such a committee varies by industry and is primarily imposed on workplaces with either 50 or more workers, depending on the requirement to appoint a safety manager.

The Health Committee, under Article 18 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act, investigates and deliberates on basic measures for the prevention of workers’ health impairments and the promotion of health. The obligation to establish this committee applies to all workplaces that regularly employ 50 or more workers, regardless of the industry.

Workplaces that are required to establish both a Safety Committee and a Health Committee can, according to Article 19 of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act, set up an integrated Safety and Health Committee.

These committees are governed by strict operational rules. The members include the overall safety and health manager, safety managers, health managers, industrial physicians, and workers from the workplace in question. Particularly important is the requirement that half of the committee members, other than those representing the employer, must be nominated based on recommendations from a labor union representing the majority of the workers (or, if there is no union, a person representing the majority of the workers). This ensures that the workers’ opinions are substantially reflected in the committee’s decision-making process.

Furthermore, the committees are required to meet at least once a month. The employer must create minutes of the committee meetings, preserve them for three years, and promptly make the summary of the proceedings known to the workers. This set of regulations demands that the committee is not just a formal meeting but a transparent process with substantive discussions, where the content is recorded and shared with all employees. These minutes can become crucial evidence in the event of a work-related accident, demonstrating how the company has recognized and addressed safety and health issues.

The Management Risks Arising from Non-Compliance with Legal Obligations in Japan

As previously discussed, failure to fulfill obligations such as the duty of care and various duties under the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act can expose companies to serious management risks. These risks are not limited to individual penalties but can simultaneously strike a company from three aspects: administrative, civil, and criminal.

Firstly, there is administrative liability. This is a direct sanction for violations of the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act. For example, if a company fails to appoint a health manager or an occupational physician, or to establish a health committee, it may be fined up to 500,000 yen under Article 120 of the Act. This represents the most direct consequence of compliance violations.

Secondly, there is civil liability. If a worker is injured or killed in a work-related accident, the affected worker or their family can claim damages against the company for breach of the duty of care (based on Article 415 of the Japanese Civil Code for non-performance of obligations) or tort liability (based on Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code). In court, the fact that a company failed to take measures prescribed by the Industrial Safety and Health Act (such as installing safety devices on dangerous machinery) is considered strong evidence of the company’s breach of the duty of care. Indeed, there are numerous precedents where companies have been found liable for their failure to fulfill obligations and ordered to pay damages amounting to tens of millions of yen, such as accidents involving unguarded presses (Tokyo District Court judgment on April 27, 2015) or fatalities due to inadequate measures against heatstroke.

Thirdly, and most seriously, is criminal liability. If a work-related accident results in injury or death to a worker, the company’s representatives or the person in charge on-site may be charged with professional negligence resulting in injury or death under Article 211 of the Japanese Penal Code. Furthermore, the Japanese Industrial Safety and Health Act includes a “dual penalty provision,” which subjects not only the individual who committed the violation but also the corporate entity to fines. Looking at past court cases, it is not uncommon for companies that have caused work-related accidents to be fined 500,000 yen, while the person in charge on-site or the company’s director receives a suspended prison sentence.

Thus, inadequacies in safety and health management systems can lead to complex and serious legal risks, including administrative penalties, substantial civil damages, and criminal liability for individual managers. These can inflict irreparable harm on a company’s financial foundation, social credibility, and the careers of its management team.

Summary

In Japan, occupational health and safety management under Japanese labor law is comprised of two main pillars: the “duty of care for safety,” which forms the foundation of all employment relationships, and the specific management systems based on the “Occupational Safety and Health Act” that embody this duty. As the scale of a workplace expands, particularly when the number of workers regularly employed exceeds 50, universal obligations such as the appointment of health managers and industrial physicians, and the establishment of health committees arise, significantly increasing the legal responsibilities of companies. Compliance with these legal obligations is not merely a cost but an essential investment to prevent workplace accidents, maintain employee health and productivity, and ultimately protect the sustainable growth and corporate value of the business. Neglecting these duties can lead to risks that manifest in the form of fines, damages, and criminal penalties, potentially shaking the very foundation of the business.

Monolith Law Office has a proven track record of supporting numerous domestic clients with the complexities of Japanese occupational safety and health law and the duty of care for safety. Our firm employs several English-speaking attorneys with foreign legal qualifications, enabling us to provide practical and strategic legal services to companies expanding internationally, ensuring they accurately understand and appropriately respond to Japanese labor regulations. If you require assistance in establishing or reviewing your occupational health and safety management systems or have inquiries related to relevant laws, please do not hesitate to contact our office.