Provisions for Human Rights Protection in Japanese Labor Law and the Protection of Workers' Personal Interests

For businesses operating in Japan, compliance with labor laws is one of the most critical management issues. However, compliance extends beyond merely adhering to formal regulations such as wages and working hours. At the core of the Japanese labor law system lies an important principle that advocates for the fundamental human rights of workers and the protection of their personal dignity. This principle imposes a legal obligation on companies to proactively create an environment where workers can maintain their dignity and work in a physically and mentally healthy state. Deeply understanding this obligation is an essential element in avoiding potential legal disputes and achieving sustainable organizational management. In this article, we will provide an expert analysis of the two fundamental legal pillars that constitute the framework for the protection of human rights under Japanese labor law. The first pillar is the ‘Principle of Equal Treatment’ established by the Japanese Labor Standards Act, which prohibits discriminatory treatment of workers based on specific attributes. The second pillar is the ‘Duty of Care for Safety,’ comprehensively protecting the personal interests of workers, as explicitly stated in the Japanese Labor Contract Law. This is a broader concept that obligates companies to take necessary measures to ensure the safety of workers’ lives and health. By analyzing how these principles have been interpreted through court precedents and how they have been codified as specific corporate obligations, we provide practical insights into the legal risks faced by companies and strategies for their management.

The Principle of Equal Treatment Under the Japanese Labor Standards Act

As a fundamental provision for the protection of human rights within Japanese labor law, Article 3 of the Japanese Labor Standards Act is often cited. This article stipulates that “An employer must not discriminate in wages, working hours, or other working conditions on the basis of the worker’s nationality, creed, or social status.” This provision embodies the principle of equality under the law, as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan, within the context of employment relationships.

The grounds for discrimination prohibited by this article are specifically enumerated as “nationality,” “creed,” and “social status.”

“Nationality” refers to the nationality held by a worker. For instance, setting different wages or promotion opportunities between Japanese nationals and foreign nationals without a reasonable basis would violate this provision.

“Creed” is interpreted broadly to include not only specific religious beliefs but also political beliefs and ideological convictions.

“Social status” means an inherent position that cannot be changed by personal effort, such as one’s birth status. Importantly, the discrimination prohibited by Article 3 is limited to these three grounds, and the article itself does not directly address discrimination based on other reasons.

Crucially, the scope of application of this principle of equal treatment is of utmost importance in legal interpretation. The Supreme Court of Japan has consistently held that this provision applies to discrimination in “working conditions” after an employment contract has been established, and not to the stage before becoming a worker, namely the “hiring” itself. This was clearly demonstrated in the Supreme Court’s decision on December 12, 1973, known as the “Mitsubishi Rayon Case.” In this case, a worker was denied permanent employment because they had concealed their involvement in student activism during the interview process. The Supreme Court ruled that companies have the “freedom to hire” and that, in principle, it is at the company’s discretion whom to employ. This established the judicial decision that Article 3 of the Japanese Labor Standards Act does not directly apply to discrimination at the hiring stage.

However, this “freedom to hire” is not unlimited. If measures taken after hiring, such as dismissal, are based on discriminatory motives that effectively contravene the principle of equal treatment, the courts may deem them invalid. A prime example is the Yokohama District Court’s decision on June 19, 1974, known as the “Hitachi Manufacturing Case.” In this case, a company dismissed a worker who had applied under a Japanese name and concealed their status as a Korean resident of Japan. The court scrutinized not the formal reason for the dismissal but its substantive motive. It concluded that the true reason for the dismissal was the worker’s “nationality,” and that such a nationality-based dismissal not only contravened the spirit of Article 3 of the Japanese Labor Standards Act but also violated the “public order and morals” stipulated in Article 90 of the Civil Code of Japan, rendering it invalid.

The managerial implications derived from these cases are significant. While the Mitsubishi Rayon Case grants companies broad discretion at the hiring stage, the Hitachi Manufacturing Case indicates that the exercise of this discretionary power will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny if it involves discriminatory realities in post-hiring personnel measures. Companies risk having their decisions legally invalidated if they are found to have discriminatory intent prohibited by Article 3 of the Japanese Labor Standards Act, even if the personnel decisions appear lawful in form. Regarding the protection of “creed,” while a worker’s inner thoughts and beliefs are protected, if actions based on those beliefs disrupt workplace order—for example, persistent proselytizing to other employees during work hours—companies have the authority to maintain discipline based on workplace regulations. Therefore, companies are required to clearly define the codes of conduct necessary to maintain the workplace environment while being considerate of the inner freedom of workers.

The Duty to Protect Workers’ Personal Interests Inherent in Labor Contracts Under Japanese Law

Another crucial pillar of human rights protection under Japanese labor law is the comprehensive duty of care that companies owe to their workers, known as the “duty of safety consideration.” This duty is explicitly stated in Article 5 of the Japanese Labor Contract Act, which reads, “The employer shall, in connection with the labor contract, consider the necessary measures to ensure that the worker can work while securing their life, body, etc.” Although this provision was enacted in 2007 (Heisei 19), the concept of the duty of safety consideration itself has been a fundamental obligation associated with labor contracts for many years, established through court precedents.  

The essence of this duty lies in the broad interpretation of the phrase “safety of life, body, etc.” Initially, this duty was discussed mainly in the context of protecting workers from physical accidents at construction sites and factories. However, with changes in the socio-economic environment, courts have expanded the scope of this “safety” to include not only protection from physical dangers but also the mental health of workers, that is, the protection of mental health. This duty is understood not merely as a passive obligation to avoid dangerous acts but as an active duty to construct and maintain a workplace environment where workers can work in good physical and mental health through the “necessary consideration.”  

The modern significance of the duty of safety consideration was defined by the Supreme Court’s decision on March 24, 2000, commonly known as the “Dentsu Case.” In this case, a young worker in their second year of employment developed depression and took their own life as a result of chronic overwork. The Supreme Court clarified for the first time that the company’s duty of safety consideration includes the obligation to ensure that “fatigue and psychological stress associated with the performance of duties do not accumulate excessively and harm the worker’s physical and mental health.” The court found a violation of the duty of safety consideration because the supervisor recognized the worker’s significant overtime and deteriorating health but failed to take measures to reduce the workload. The judgment, which ultimately resulted in a settlement of approximately 168 million yen, illustrates the significant management risks companies face if they breach this duty.  

Since the Dentsu Case ruling, the duty of safety consideration has become a core concept in risk management in modern workplaces. Companies are responsible for a wide range of duties, including ensuring the physical safety of the work environment, preventing overwork, addressing stress arising from workplace relationships, and establishing systems to detect and respond to early signs of workers’ mental health issues. This broad duty of safety consideration forms the basis for more specific and detailed legal obligations, such as harassment prevention measures to be discussed later. Understanding this structure is essential for companies to build an integrated compliance system that goes beyond piecemeal rule adherence and responds to the fundamental legal demand to protect workers’ personal interests.

Comparing the Principle of Equal Treatment and the Duty of Care for Safety Under Japanese Law

The “Principle of Equal Treatment” and the “Duty of Care for Safety,” which we have been discussing, both share the common goal of protecting the dignity and human rights of workers. However, there are clear differences in their legal nature and the content of the obligations they impose on companies. The Principle of Equal Treatment is a “duty of inaction” that prohibits discriminatory treatment based on specific reasons such as nationality, creed, or social status. It commands companies not to engage in certain actions, with a focus on ensuring fairness among workers. On the other hand, the Duty of Care for Safety is a “duty of action” that requires companies to actively take necessary measures to protect the lives and physical and mental health of workers. It demands that companies provide all workers with a safe and healthy working environment that meets a certain standard.

To clarify these differences, the following table compares the personalityistics of both.

As can be seen from this comparison, the Principle of Equal Treatment pertains to issues of “fairness” in labor conditions, while the Duty of Care for Safety pertains to issues of “soundness” in the working environment. Companies must comply with both obligations simultaneously and independently. For example, even if a company provides equal labor conditions to all workers, if the overall workplace environment is poor due to excessive labor or inappropriate interpersonal relationships, it may be in violation of the Duty of Care for Safety. Conversely, even if a physically safe workplace is maintained, employing workers of a specific nationality at unreasonably low wages would violate the Principle of Equal Treatment. Therefore, for effective labor management and risk avoidance, it is essential to accurately understand the differences in the nature of these two obligations and to establish an internal system that responds to each.

Concrete Legal Obligations for the Protection of Personal Interests

The aforementioned broad duty of care for safety is not merely an abstract principle but has been concretized through specific laws that dictate the measures companies must take. A prime example is the amended Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies, commonly known as the “Power Harassment Prevention Law” in Japan. This law legally obligates companies to take concrete employment management measures to prevent power harassment in the workplace. The codification of this law is groundbreaking in that it transforms the comprehensive concept of duty of care into practical and verifiable corporate actions.

The law requires companies to do more than just declare a prohibition of harassment. Instead, it mandates the establishment and operation of a systematic internal system to prevent harassment from occurring and to appropriately address it when it does occur. This obligation consists of the following four main elements:

Firstly, “clarification and dissemination of the employer’s policies.” Companies must establish a clear policy that power harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and specifically indicate what behaviors constitute harassment. Furthermore, they must clearly state in their internal regulations, such as work rules, their policy to deal strictly with harassers and the specific disciplinary actions to be taken, and ensure that all workers are thoroughly informed through training and internal communications.

Secondly, “establishment of a system to respond to consultations appropriately.” Companies must set up a dedicated consultation desk where workers can confidently discuss harassment issues and make its existence known to all workers. It is also mandatory for the personnel in charge of the consultation desk to protect the privacy of the consultants while responding fairly and appropriately to the content of the cases, which requires the provision of necessary training and manuals.

Thirdly, “prompt and appropriate post-harassment response in the workplace.” When a consultation is received, companies must promptly investigate the facts. If the facts are confirmed, they must quickly take measures to consider the affected workers (such as reassignment) and, at the same time, impose appropriate disciplinary actions on the perpetrator based on the work rules. They are also obligated to take measures to prevent similar cases from recurring.

Fourthly, in implementing these series of measures, “protection of the privacy of the consultants and prohibition of disadvantageous treatment” is required. Companies must take measures to prevent the infringement of the privacy of the consultants and those who cooperated with the investigation, and clearly stipulate that no disadvantageous treatment, such as dismissal or demotion, shall be given for reasons such as having consulted about harassment or having cooperated with the fact-finding, and ensure that this is well known and understood by the workers.

These legal obligations mean that the fulfillment of the duty of care is evaluated not by the goodwill or effort goals of the company but by concrete processes and procedures. In the event of a legal dispute, courts and labor administrative agencies will strictly examine not only whether the company has formally introduced these systems but also whether they were actually functioning effectively. Therefore, it is extremely important for companies to build and operate these measures not as mere “checklists” but as effective corporate governance mechanisms that substantively protect the personal interests of workers, in order to fulfill their legal responsibilities.

Summary

As outlined in this article, Japanese labor law provides a robust legal framework that goes beyond merely regulating working conditions to protect the fundamental dignity and personal interests of workers. The principle of “equal treatment” under Article 3 of the Japanese Labor Standards Act prohibits discrimination based on immutable personalityistics such as nationality, creed, or social status, ensuring fairness in the workplace. Meanwhile, the “duty of care for safety” rooted in Article 5 of the Japanese Labor Contract Act obligates companies to ensure the comprehensive well-being of workers, from physical safety to mental health. These principles have evolved into clear standards of conduct that companies must follow, through the accumulation of judicial decisions over the years and specific legislative measures such as the enactment of anti-power harassment laws. Non-compliance with these obligations can lead to direct legal risks such as high compensation claims and administrative guidance, as well as potentially severe negative impacts on a company’s social reputation and employee morale.

Monolith Law Office has a proven track record of providing extensive advice to numerous domestic and international client companies regarding these complex and profound obligations contained within Japanese labor law. Our firm’s strength lies in our deep expertise in the Japanese legal system combined with an understanding of the international business environment. We have several attorneys who are native English speakers and also qualified in foreign jurisdictions, enabling us to support the construction of practical and effective compliance systems tailored to each company’s business and organizational culture from an international perspective. We are committed to supporting your company from a legal standpoint in addressing the important modern management issue of protecting the personal interests of workers.