Documents Yamakawa, Ryuichi 4 results

"This paper sets out to identify and study ways in which labor policies respond to violations of labor and employment laws. Firstly, the term “violations of labor and employment laws” will be defined, in terms of labor policies, as referring to acts that violate certain prohibitive or instructive norms when these have been imposed on employers and others by law. Next, types of labor policy response to violations of labor and employment laws will be identified from the viewpoint of measures for implementing labor law. Thirdly, the current situation of labor and employment law violations seen as particularly problematic in Japan today will be introduced, along with the action taken to address them. And finally, future issues and perspectives for study will be indicated, with focus on the aspect of proactively preventing violations of the law, in connection with the future directions to be taken for policy response against violations."

"The aim of this article is to explore aspects of Japanese law on unfair labor practices, with reference to the distinctive features of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) system.Modeled on the National Labor Relations Act in the United States, the Labor Union Act of Japan provides for a system of prohibiting and redressing unfair labor practices. Also, like the National Labor Relations Board in the United States, the Labor Union Act established a system of LRCs as independent administrative agencies in charge of unfair labor practice procedures.These LRCs have some distinctive features, in that the law applied by LRCs as administrative agencies has the nature of administrative law, and that they tend to play the role of adjusting the relationship between labor and management, based on their function of dispute adjustment and their tripartite composition. These features of LRCs appear to have influenced Japan's unfair labor practice law. In this sense, Japanese unfair labor practice law can be said to be “the law of the LRC.” "

" This article compares the judicial regimes for resolving individual employment rights disputes in Germany, Great Britain and Japan. First, we consider the form of institutional change; second, we examine the lay judge's role; and third, we assess the effectiveness of the three judicial regimes. We find that Japan made the least institutional change, layering a new procedure on top of an existing one. Paradoxically, however, its lay judges have a more extensive role than their counterparts in Germany and Britain, which established new institutions. As to effectiveness, there are several criteria. British labour courts are currently the least informal and speedy, but the cheapest. In both Britain and Germany, legal norms are publicised as adjudicatory hearings are open to the public and judgments are available for public scrutiny, unlike in Japan."