[Last Mile Workers Union] filed complaints regarding termination recommendations, disciplinary measures, repeated interviews, harassment claims, and serious governance concerns as a publicly listed company.

October 5, 2026

Last1Mile Inc.
Dear Board of Directors
To the Audit and Supervisory Committee
All Outside Directors
Internal Audit Department & Compliance Department

Last Mile Labor Union
？？？@？？？？？？？？

Petition
— regarding termination warnings, disciplinary measures, repeated interviews, harassment complaints, and significant governance concerns as a listed company —

The labor union has determined that it is not appropriate to treat the series of disciplinary measures, fact-finding hearings, reward and punishment committee, resignation recommendation, harassment acts, and other actions taken against the employee who is a member of the union at your company (“the said member”) as mere personnel matters of a single employee, and has formally submitted this to the Board of Directors, the Audit Committee, the external directors, the internal audit department, and the compliance department.

The labor union will receive a request from the individual concerned, verify the individual’s report and the details described in this document, and then make a petition and request on behalf of the union based on its own position. Applications and requests in the individual’s name will be made separately by the individual concerned.

The essence of this matter is not solely in the issue of whether to accept a resignation offer.

The issue lies in the question of how the company has interconnected pre-notified absences, health-related circumstances, matters pertaining to private life, disciplinary proceedings, multiple hearings, and recommendations for termination of employment under what kind of decision-making structure, and whether the workers’ personality, health, free will, and dignity at work were properly protected in the process.

In this case, following the formation of the labor union and the publication of the article, the organization, led by Representative Director Chairman and CEO Mr. Watanabe Makoto, engaged in a systematic search for members and a ruthless hunt for the culprit, accompanied by intimidation by Mr. Watanabe Makoto, including threats of murder, direct sexual harassment and power harassment by Director and Executive Officer Mr. Ito Miwa, and intimidating and threatening remarks by Human Resources and General Affairs Department Manager Mr. Iijima Yuko. The labor union strongly protests these actions as a series of company-wide measures aimed at suppressing union activities and pushing the members into resignation.

Furthermore, in this case, the harassment complaint also includes the director himself who directly made the recommendation to resign, and it is no longer appropriate from the perspective of procedural fairness to handle this matter solely within the director’s own organization or within his/her chain of command.

The union member has already received a diagnosis of adjustment disorder and has obtained a referral for rest and continued outpatient treatment. Furthermore, as mentioned in Section 3, he is also receiving medication treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Any future communications should be sent simultaneously to the two email addresses specified in Section 4, regardless of whether they are addressed to the union or the union member. We request that communications be made via email, rather than in person, through an online meeting or phone call with company personnel.

1 There is no intention to retire among the members of the union concerned.

First, let’s check the most basic facts.

The union member has never once asked the company to resign.

After being approached by Mr. Ito on August 28, 2026 to resign by mutual consent, the union member clearly stated on the internal communication tool on the 31st of the same month that he did not want to resign and would remain with the company.

The company itself also stated in the “Request for Agreement for Resignation” dated August 28 that this matter is not a dismissal, but merely a proposal for consensual resignation based on free will.

Therefore, legally and practically speaking, the current situation is extremely simple.

The company has not announced the dismissal.

The union member is refusing to resign.

Therefore, the response regarding the resignation recommendation has already been completed.

The union member will not resign.

The employee in question has not signed the agreement regarding the resignation. He/She is still employed and has been coming to work while fighting mental symptoms. Currently, he/she needs the rest and treatment indicated in Section 4. We do not accept any changes to the disciplinary letter of August 31 to read the agreement as a resignation, or to treat September 30, which was stated unilaterally by the company as the agreed date of resignation. Please do not process the resignation, the loss of social security eligibility, or the eviction of the company-owned apartment based on the agreement regarding resignation.

We intend to continue providing employment in the future, and, after receiving the necessary rest and treatment, if possible, to complete employment until retirement age, and thereafter to share a long-term career vision with the company, including extending the retirement age, re-employment, and other systems.

Since the company has explicitly stated that it respects the “free will of the individual,” after that free will has been clearly expressed, there must be no continued, repeated, or indirect pressure to change that free will in practice.

2 Forms of separate procedures should be examined as a single, practically continuous process of personnel action.

The need to review the series of personnel actions

In this case, since June 2026, there has been a series of actions, including questioning of the employee’s circumstances, disciplinary action, a second questioning of the employee’s circumstances, a disciplinary committee, a second disciplinary action, requests for consent to resign, and a second questioning of the employee after refusing to resign.

Even if the company sides claim that each of them is a formally independent procedure, that is not enough.

In terms of labor law, the issue is not the name or the form of the document, but its substance.

Since disciplinary measures, interviews, fact-finding sessions, reward and punishment committees, and recommendations for retirement are being continuously implemented for the same employees over a short period of time, the board of directors and the audit committee are responsible, not to evaluate each in isolation, but to verify what the overall purpose of the series of personnel actions was.

In particular, if the announcement of disciplinary measures and the recommendation for resignation were made close together, even if there were legal distinctions between the two, from the perspective of the employee’s psychological state, it is possible to conclude that the decision to resign was prompted by the disciplinary action.

Therefore, the company must disclose the details of the disciplinary decision, the reward and punishment committee decision, and the recommendation for termination of employment, as well as the time and evidence on which each decision was made.

The progress of union member exploration and a comparison of the numbers for canary traps

When examining this series of responses, it is impossible to separate the initial steps of forming the union and publishing the article from the subsequent efforts to find members and information providers. Instead of improving workplace issues, your company proceeded in the direction of finding the person who reported the issues to the union as the “perpetrator,” targeting that member as the target.

On June 11, 2026, the notice distributed by your company contained an intentional discrepancy between the wording for the entire workforce and the wording for the members of the respective union. The union has confirmed to management that this discrepancy was a canary trap to identify the members and sources involved. We are not concerned with a mere typographical error or a random spelling error.

When comparing the text of the two types of notices held by the labor union, even after excluding differences in uppercase and lowercase characters, blank spaces, and line breaks, a total of 24 consecutive changes were found. The breakdown based on the overall text is 14 changes for replacement, 5 for deletion, and 5 for insertion. In addition, the nature of the changes was divided into 12 changes involving only punctuation and brackets, and 12 changes involving words and phrases, with the similarity index of the string being 98.54%. Multiple differences that can be used for recognition are scattered throughout almost identical notices.

The comparison is based on the normalized Unicode NFKC format, excluding the header, subject line and greeting, contact information, and signature, and counting the number of consecutive differences between the two texts. The consistency index is calculated by dividing the total number of characters in the corresponding common strings by the total number of characters in both texts. The 24 locations are the number of modified sections, not the number of subjects. The purpose of the exploration and the comparison of these numbers are based on different grounds, respectively.

To protect the personal information of information providers and members, the original email’s sending and receiving addresses, recipient display, individual differences in text strings, and original images will not be included in this document. Your company is requested to answer based on the records regarding who proposed, instructed, or approved the distribution of the document, the criteria for selecting the target individuals, the method of verification after delivery, the reporting destination for verification results, the use of interviews, disciplinary measures, and recommendations for resignation. The use of this document to seek secondary perpetrators is not permitted as a condition for responding.

Legal issues regarding union member exploration and unfair treatment

While stating that it respects legitimate union activities, seeking out and disadvantaging those who participate in them directly contradicts the company’s own explanation. The union believes that the search for these members and the resulting disadvantage to those members constitutes unfair labor practices that violate Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the Labor Union Act, and demands the cessation of the search, the rectification of unfair treatment, and the prevention of recurrence.

The control interference prohibited by Article 7, No. 3 of the Labor Union Law does not only target actual dismissals or reductions in wages; it also includes actions that hinder the formation and operation of labor unions. What the labor union is concerned about is not a technical maneuver of changing the wording of the notice, but the purpose and practice of identifying those who engage in legitimate union activities and shrinking their activities, thereby linking them to personnel pressure. Under the common name of general information management or leak prevention measures, it is impossible to justify the search for union members and the imposition of adverse treatment in this case.

Progress by date

(1) On June 19, 2026 at 11:30 AM, the first interview with Mr. Iijima was held. The member explained the fact that he had previously contacted the union regarding late arrival and absence, but the union unilaterally determined that it was unjustified late arrival and absence.

(2) On June 23 at 2:30 p.m., a meeting was held with Mr. Ito, and it was announced that a disciplinary action had been decided. On June 30, a written document regarding the disciplinary action was exchanged. The sexual gaze and the invitation to play golf alone that occurred during the meeting with Mr. Ito on June 23 will be specifically discussed in Section 3.

(3) On July 28 at 18:30, the second interview with Mr. Iijima took place, and he was questioned again about the pre-notification absence on the day that occurred after the previous disciplinary action.

(4) On August 12 at 10:30 AM, the reward and punishment committee was held. The participants included Representative Director and COO Mitsuru Matsunaga, Director and Executive Officer Ito, Takuya Yanagida, and Takanari Kubikumi, as well as personnel from the internal audit department.

(5) The interview with Mr. Ito was scheduled for August 18, but was cancelled due to the member’s fever. He had previously informed the union of his absence. This absence due to the fever was later considered for follow-up at the interview on September 8.

(6) On August 28 at 11:00, Mr. Ito conveyed the decision of the disciplinary committee regarding his absence on that day and the details of the disciplinary measures regarding the company apartment, and, citing the reasons, asked them, “Will we not resign to the benefit of each other?” The application for consensual resignation on the same date stated that the desired date for resignation was September 30, and the deadline for reply was 12:00 on September 4.

(7) On August 31, a disciplinary action letter based on the August 28 decision was exchanged. On the same day, the member of the union sent a clear message through the internal communication tool that he/she “does not want to resign and stay (survive) with the company.” It was not until September 4 that a response from Mr. Ito arrived.

(8) On September 8 at 18:30, the third interview with Mr. Iijima took place. Mr. Iijima explained that he learned about the resignation request from the member on August 28 after being informed of it, and then asked again about the pre-notification absence due to fever on August 18.

(9) On September 15, the employee could no longer bear the sexual gaze of Mr. Ito, and when he crossed paths with him at work, he explicitly asked him to stop staring at his crotch.

(10) On September 18 at 10:15, the fourth meeting with Mr. Iijima took place, during which he was asked about the unpaid water bills related to the company housing.

(11) Subsequently, amidst the long weekend and just before September 30 (Wednesday), the day on which the unilateral transfer order was issued disregarding the will of the employee concerned and the change of the responsible officer occurred, a sudden meeting with Mr. Yanagida was held. Furthermore, during the meeting with Mr. Iijima on the same day, the matter of the water bill was again aggressively pressed upon him. The specific details of the transfer and the various meetings are described in sections 3 and 6 below.

(12) The diagnosis certificate dated October 2nd states that the patient is currently undergoing inpatient treatment due to adjustment disorder and requires about one month of rest and regular visits to the hospital to improve symptoms. I have also reviewed the receipt for the ED treatment on the same date and the patient information leaflet for prescribing patients.

Issues to be verified as part of the series of measures

So far, there have been five meetings with Mr. Iijima, where we were able to identify the date; two meetings with Mr. Ito, which have already taken place; and this is in addition to the meeting with Mr. Yanagida on September 30 with the Rewards and Punishment Committee. Please examine the overall picture, not only whether or not the same events have occurred, but also by successively addressing different matters, including union membership prospecting, disciplinary action, pressure to resign, and responses to refusals of sexual behavior.

3 We demand an independent harassment investigation into Mr. Ito's actions.

The union member has stated that they suffered significant psychological distress during the series of meetings and contacts with Mr. Ito.

The content includes not only acts that may constitute power harassment but also acts that are recognized as sexual harassment.

In particular, the members of that union have stated that during meetings with Mr. Ito, they repeatedly or unnecessarily felt that their private parts were being observed, and that they experienced strong sexual shame, discomfort, and disgust about the manner of that gaze.

Sexual gazes that continued after the office transfer and the interview on June 23

By the end of 2025, the office of Mr. Ito, where the aforementioned members, Mr. Ito and Mr. Iijima work, had moved from the 3rd floor of the Ault Tower (4-21 Higashikebukuro, Toyoshima Ward, Tokyo) where the Tokyo headquarters is located, to the 3rd floor of the Toikugahara Center Building (4-41 No. 24 Higashikebukuro, Toyoshima Ward, Tokyo). Since that time, Mr. Ito began obsessively staring at the buttocks of the aforementioned members.

At first, the union member believed that Ms. Ito, who was a woman about a year older than him, would never look at him with such a sexual gaze. However, he began to feel that it was clearly abnormal because he was being looked at in that way too many times.

Amidst this situation, as the union members' exposure to each other continued, Mr. Ito himself proactively held personal interviews with the individual. In the first face-to-face interview, which began at 2:30 p.m. on June 23, the union member felt that "Oh, this person is clearly staring at my private parts with sexual eyes." At that moment, Mr. Ito also invited the union member to go out alone to play golf, which he was actively working on.

The union member found that such a rude look was nothing but unpleasant, and he had no intention of going out for golf alone. However, Mr. Ito approached them while hinting at retirement, and due to the anxiety about what would happen to his employment if he refused, the union member felt great fear. He is questioning whether the connection between his official resignation letter and personal enticements had been made since August 28, the day on which the formal agreement for resignation was delivered.

Repetitive behavior at work and the recurrence of pain caused by LINE stickers

Even after that, every time Ito would pass by the company, he would increasingly gaze intently into her crotch, and he would also smile in an inscrutable way that only the member of the union would understand. The person himself was unable to escape the harassment even after the interview ended, and he was left in a situation where he would repeatedly feel sexual discomfort and fear every time he entered the office and passed by her.

For several years now, Mr. Ito has been instructing his employees to create their own LINE stickers at work, essentially issuing a decree that they must use them. The employee in question, of course, knew about the stickers; some of them even resembled the exact same expression that would appear when Mr. Ito looked at his crotch. Every time he saw them, the harassment he had endured would flash back to him, overwhelming his mind.

Therefore, please include in the scope of investigation not only face-to-face actions but also instructions to create and use stamps using the expressions of individual officers at the workplace, the scope for such use, and the psychological impact on the individual. Please immediately stop forcing the relevant member to use the stamps or repeatedly view them, while retaining records of related stamps, images, instructions for creating and using the stamps.

Clear rejection on September 15 and transfer/change of responsible officer on September 30

As the sexual harassment of Ito and the power harassment of Ito and Iijima accelerated, on September 15, 2026, the employee finally couldn’t stand it anymore and when she walked past Ito at the company, she clearly told him, “Please stop staring at my crotch with those disgusting eyes.”

In response, Mr. Ito said nothing, but instead gave the same creepy expression as the LINE sticker, and walked past with a wry smile. Subsequently, on September 30 (Wednesday), shortly after the long weekend, without any explanation whatsoever regarding the previous circumstances or the reason for the change, a unilateral transfer order was issued that ignored the will of the member in question. The new location was assigned to Mr. Yanagida, and the person in charge of the transfer was a different officer from Mr. Ito, who had previously been persistent in handling the matter personally. Mr. Yanagida said, “Welcome to the new position starting next month.”

The labor union and the members of that union view this sudden change in policy as a clear indication that Mr. Ito, who was explicitly pointed out for sexual behavior, was no longer able to maintain his previous behavior and, in effect, admitted to his own actions. The fact that, shortly after the September 15 rejection notice, Mr. Ito, who had been directly dealing with the individual for a long time, changed the contact person without explaining the reason is inexcusable. Your company is proceeding with the handling of the matter as if the change in contact person resolved the problem; please do not end the investigation of past actions and the verification of responsibility.

Treatment of long-term damage and erectile dysfunction (ED)

The damage caused by this prolonged sexual harassment goes beyond sexual shame and mental distress. The employee has been seeking medical treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), and under the doctor’s prescription, he is receiving medication. The labor union also claims that the prolonged staring at his groin caused this erectile dysfunction and is a specific health issue in this case.

We are also verifying the receipt for the visit dated October 2, 2026, and the explanation from the doctor. Please do not treat this as a mere matter of discomfort or personal preference; instead, please investigate the actual situation of victims who are actually requiring medication treatment.

The member in question is a man; Ms. Ito is a woman, but that is not the point.

Sexual harassment is not limited to cases where the perpetrator is a man and the victim is a woman; nor is it limited to physical contact or explicit sexual remarks.

If an employee reasonably perceives that they are being unnecessarily scrutinized by someone in a dominant position at work regarding their sexual body parts, and as a result, suffer from sexual shame or workplace distress, the company must at least formally accept the complaint as a harassment report and conduct a fact-finding investigation.

What is important is not to first decide on the subjective question of whether Mr. Ito had "sexual intentions."

The issue is for the company to independently verify at what distance, for how long, and with what gaze, and how the same thing happened multiple times, and what psychological burden the member of the union felt afterwards.

Judging this declaration solely by the person of Ito or by those directly under his direct command would significantly undermine procedural fairness.

The Guidelines for Preventing Sexual Harassment under Article 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (No. 615 of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2006) 4(2) and 4(3) require that responses be tailored to the content of the consultation and the individual’s physical and mental condition. Handling that does not accept complaints or does not conduct necessary confirmation solely on the basis that there has been no physical contact or that the perpetrator has denied the facts is not permitted. Repeating explanations to the member regarding the incident and ensuring that no secondary harm occurs are also necessary to establish a proper investigation system.

Conducting adverse reassignment or other measures based on the refusal to engage in sexual conduct becomes an issue of retaliatory sexual harassment covered by Article 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Sexual Harassment Prevention Guidelines. Article 2 of the same article also prohibits adverse treatment based on consultation with employers or cooperation in consultation response. In this case, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether the retaliation against the refusal to engage in sexual conduct, the intention to exclude the victim from the original workplace, or the intention to obscure the responsibility of that officer are included in the reassignment and transfer of duties.

Even if there is the right to assign employees, if there is no need for the business operation, if there is an unjust motive or purpose, or if it causes a disadvantage that significantly exceeds the usual level of tolerance, it may be invalid as an abuse of rights (Article 3, Paragraph 5 of the Labor Contract Act, Toji Small Judgment of July 14, 1999 in the East Asia Paint Case). It is impossible to reject verification of motive, purpose, and impact on the individual based on the explanation that “it is because of the company’s human resources department.”

We request that your company respond, together with the decision documents and the contact records, with the date of the decision to make the change, the person who proposed the change, the person who approved the change, the involvement of Mr. Ito, Mr. Iijima, and Mr. Watanabe, the operational necessity, the reasons for selecting the target person, the date and day of implementation of the change, the affiliation, duties, positions, wages, place of work, chain of command and instructions, the consideration based on the person’s own health condition, the reason for not choosing other protective measures.

We are not asking to return the member to Mr. Ito’s direct control. If the measure is intended to protect the person, such as avoiding contact, it should be implemented with respect for the person’s will and health, and with clear conditions that do not create any disadvantage. Transferring the burden solely to the person in the name of victim protection and disregarding the responsibility of the perpetrator is not a protective measure.

Therefore, our union demands an investigation by an independent person from Mr. Ito, an internal audit department, an outside director, or an external expert.

Independence in this context cannot be judged by the department’s name alone. Mr. Yanagida was a participant in the disciplinary committee on August 12, and the committee also includes individuals who may have been involved in the internal audit department. It is not permissible to require those involved in the investigation, interview, disciplinary action, recommendation for resignation, or decision on transfer to examine and determine the appropriateness of their own actions.

Please appoint a person who is not involved in the said conduct or decision-making and who does not receive instructions or approval from the involved parties regarding the investigation policy, findings, or report contents. Please investigate the actions of each relevant person, including Mr. Ito and Mr. Iijima, and clarify the investigator, scope of investigation, method of questioning, method of collecting materials, destination of reports, and schedule. Please do not use the method of having the person repeat the same traumatic experience in person; first, please conduct verification through this document, the person’s written statement, and existing records.

4 Request a review of the relationship between repetitive interviews and mental health issues under the safety-related obligations.

The union member has suffered severe mental stress due to the series of interviews, questioning of circumstances, and the disciplinary proceedings, and has developed an adaptation disorder.

The diagnosis certificate dated October 2, 2026, lists “adjustment disorder” as the injury or illness, and it states that the patient is currently undergoing inpatient treatment. To improve their symptoms, they require about one month of rest and regular visits to the doctor once every one to two weeks. This is not an abstract claim made at the stage of diagnosis; rather, the doctor recognizes the need for rest and continued treatment.

The labor union claims that the intimidation, including the organization-wide search for union members, the threat to kill Watanabe, the sexual behavior of Ito, the repeated harassment by Ito and Imamachi, and the pressure to resign constitute a series of workplace pressures that led to the onset and worsening of adjustment disorder. We demand that the entire health damage suffered by the individual, including the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) described in Section 3, be taken into account in the response.

The final determination of a medical causal relationship should be made based on medical records, etc., but as a company, the important thing is not to do anything until the causal relationship is established.

Rather, under circumstances where workers are complaining of mental illness or showing signs thereof, it should be examined whether the practice of repeatedly conducting fact-finding or follow-up interviews over a short period of time by officers on multiple occasions regarding the same or similar matters was appropriate.

Users are required to take safety measures regarding the health of their minds and bodies as well as the lives and bodies of workers.

If the company continued to hold interviews even after recognizing or becoming aware of mental health issues, please clearly answer whether it considered the necessity of the interviews, the frequency of their conduct, the number of participants, the duration of the interviews, the questions asked, the absence of breaks, the possibility of having an agent or an accompanying person present, and whether a written response would be sufficient.

Immediate change in contact method to be implemented and simultaneous sending of emails

Members of such a union will suffer significant mental harm from face-to-face contact with company personnel, online interviews, or phone calls. On the other hand, they are able to communicate smoothly with their trusted union. Treating them as if they could talk to the union rather than the company—that is to say, treating them as if they are present at work—ignores the differences between the person causing the symptoms and the situation.

The employee himself/herself wishes to conduct the communication with the company solely via email while sharing information with the labor union. The labor union also believes that there is substantial evidence to support this request. In the future, all communications and responses to the labor union, including those to the member, must be sent to the following two addresses simultaneously, with the same text and attached materials.

When the labor union:??@??@??

The member of the association: ???@???

Please always specify the addressee or CC. Do not send the information to the union only, or to the union only without informing the addressee; please refrain from sending separate materials or only certain parts of the information. If the reply to the union is to be made in a separate document, please send each to both addresses simultaneously. Also, when providing information regarding the diagnosis and application of the person, please handle it in the same manner within the scope of the person’s shared intention regarding this matter.

Please refrain from making calls without prior consent, sudden face-to-face meetings, video conferences, voice calls, phone calls, oral questioning, and private contact. Please communicate with individuals via email, including routine work instructions, explanations regarding transfers, harassment investigations, leave and recuperation requests, and housing and utility bill inquiries. Summarize and list the necessary information, and be considerate of symptoms and the burden of answering questions.

The provision of this contact method does not mean that the person refuses to respond to the company or to perform the necessary procedures. It is a request to ensure that the content and progress are shared accurately while maintaining health, and to enable the necessary responses and procedures. Do not use requests for an email response or failure to respond to face-to-face or phone calls as new reasons for refusal of cooperation, violation of work orders, or disciplinary or dismissal recommendations.

Designate someone other than Mr. Ito and Mr. Iijima to handle the company’s response, and ensure that they also take over the details of the matter and the method of contact. Limit medical information regarding adjustment disorder and erectile dysfunction (ED) to the necessary personnel, and prohibit the person from discussing their symptoms at work or using the contents of the diagnosis as a source of attack against the person.

These requests call for immediate consideration and implementation as safety measures under Article 5 of the Labor Contract Act, measures under Article 11(1) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and measures under Article 31(1) of the Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies Act. Article 31(2) of the same act prohibits adverse treatment based on consultations regarding harassment. Furthermore, the corresponding provisions for actions taken before September 30, 2026 are Article 30(2), Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same act before the amendment.

To ensure the approximately one month of rest indicated on the diagnosis certificate and regular medical check-ups, please proceed with the necessary medical treatment, leave of absence, work reduction, contact avoidance, and adjustment of work methods, based on the opinions of your attending physician and occupational physician, etc. Until the confirmation of the diagnosis certificate or the internal investigation is completed, it is not acceptable to ignore the immediate health damage.

5 Regarding disciplinary action, please thoroughly verify whether the procedure was appropriate.

When a company exercises disciplinary authority, it cannot be justified solely by the abstract term of management decision.

Disciplinary action is a significant disciplinary measure that directly affects an employee's status, reputation, evaluation, and future career.

Therefore, at a minimum, accuracy in fact determination, objectivity of evidence, basis in employment rules, guarantee of opportunity to defend, proportionality of punishment, balance with other employees, and absence of abuse of disciplinary authority are required.

Please answer the following questions regarding this matter.

(1) Specific reasons for evaluating the interview on June 19, 2026 as “unjustifiable late arrival or absence,” despite having previously communicated this.

(2) The circumstances leading to the disciplinary decision within a short period of time until June 23.

(3) By the time the disciplinary letter was issued on June 30, how much opportunity for defense had been given to the member concerned?

(4) On July 28, there was a need to hear the explanation regarding the previously notified absence again.

(5) The members of the disciplinary committee on August 12, the materials, the deliberations, the person's explanation, the criteria for determining the amount of punishment, and whether a record was kept.

(6) Documents showing that the decision-making process between the announcement of the disciplinary action on August 28 (the related documents were exchanged on August 31) and the request for voluntary resignation were independent of each other.

And most importantly, the evaluation of the members of that union was not based on an individual assessment of the facts but rather on a preliminary assessment of the “problem employees,” and only facts consistent with that assessment were selectively collected.

This is not just a labor management issue; it is a problem of confirmation bias in the decision-making process.

Please conduct this kind of verification as a governance measure for listed companies.

The exercise of disciplinary authority is subject to the limitations of reasonableness and appropriateness under Article 15 of the Labor Contract Act. Our union demands the withdrawal of unfair disciplinary measures associated with pressure to recruit members and retire, and the correction of the resulting adverse consequences such as evaluation and salary reductions. Until an independent review by the relevant parties is completed, do not use the disputed disciplinary measures as additional disciplinary measures, recommendations for retirement, or established facts of unfavorable placement.

6 Clarify the limits of intervention in the private sphere

Regarding the unpaid water bills related to the housing project, follow-up discussions were held on September 18, and a new meeting was also scheduled for September 30. The following is the details of the matter.

The union members use your company’s housing system, but the actual costs associated with the housing are borne by the employees themselves through salary deductions. As far as the union is aware, this system was established with the aim of reducing the company’s social insurance contributions. Just by describing that they are “providing housing,” this does not mean that they can interfere with the employee’s personal life in general.

Regarding the water bill, there was a problem where a member forgot to pay it once, and when they opened the water valve by themselves, it accidentally got damaged. Subsequently, they renewed the contract under a different name. Meanwhile, the previous unpaid bill was due to repeated warnings of termination and threatening behavior, and they unintentionally delayed the payment due to mental illness.

It is one thing to confirm the details of the issue and the necessary payments, and another thing to intimidate the person and deny their personal credit. It is not meant to explain that the previous unpaid installments have been resolved through a new contract under a different name. The unpaid installments, the handling of damage, and the specific relationship with the company should be arranged based on facts and documents, and not used as a pretext to repeatedly harass the person suffering from mental symptoms.

On Wednesday, September 30, while Mr. Yanagida was being briefed on the transfer, he was greeted with the words “Welcome next month,” but on the same day, Mr. Iijima held a meeting regarding the unpaid water bill and, in a tone full of anger, told the member concerned, “When will you settle the unpaid bill?” and “I don’t trust you.” Following the matter discussed on September 18, even more intimidating follow-up questioning was carried out at a time when the employee had already expressed disagreement with the resignation and refused sexual advances.

Our labor union strongly protests these statements by Mr. Iijima as not merely a routine administrative matter unrelated to the actions of Mr. Ito, but as threatening statements motivated by a power relationship based on their respective positions of authority and direct power harassment. Even if a different officer is appointed, if the Human Resources and General Affairs Department head still intimidates the individual on the same day, it does not mean that the company has taken steps to prevent further harm.

In the first place, if the water utility contract is an individual contract for the members of the association, there must be a specific and reasonable connection between the company’s operations and the issue in order to use it for disciplinary action, personnel evaluation, or termination of employment recommendations against the members of the association.

Companies are not allowed to monitor employees' personal lives in general.

Furthermore, if matters in personal life are successively transformed into personnel evaluation material, the boundary between labor management and personality control will be lost.

The Prevention of Power Harassment Guidelines (No. 5 of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2020) 2(5) require that the purpose, background, manner, frequency, and continuity of the behavior, as well as the physical and mental condition of the employee, be comprehensively considered. Paragraphs 2(7)(l) and (h) of the guidelines list as representative types of conduct intimidation and insults, as well as individual violations that excessively intrude on personal matters. It is different for there to be a matter of confirmation such as unpaid bills or equipment damage, and for intimidating and repetitive inquiries made using personnel positions to be permitted. Your company should verify the reasons for requiring action beyond the scope necessary to confirm payment and the burden caused by actual behavior by comparing the situation to the actual conduct.

Therefore, please answer whether the water utility fee issue has caused any specific damage or risk to the company’s business, housing management, company assets, other employees, or the company’s reputation.

If there is no specific damage to the company, please explain the reasonable reason why the company pursued the issue in the individual contract.

Even if there are matters that the company should verify regarding the management of company housing or the damage to the facilities, please indicate the basis in the contract or regulations, the specific impact on the company, the procedures to be followed by the individual, and the amount in an email with supporting documents. There must be a strict distinction between reasonable management verification and using unpaid bills or accidents as a pressure to quit or a form of personality degradation. Please stop shouting at the person who has been diagnosed with the condition as a reason for not paying on time and asking them to attend repeated meetings.

7 Please disclose the actual status of past warnings regarding resignation

This time, the company has deliberately emphasized in writing that it is not a dismissal and that it is a matter of free will.

If that is the case, it is necessary to verify that the explanation is substantively covered throughout the company’s system management.

Our labor union does not request any personal information.

For the past five years, please disclose the number of employees who have received a resignation recommendation from the company, the number of those who have resigned, the number who refused to resign and continued in their positions, the number who received disciplinary action or multiple interviews before receiving a resignation recommendation, and the number who were dismissed, terminated from employment, transferred to another position, or subjected to other serious adverse treatment after refusing a resignation recommendation.

This allows for an objective assessment of whether the company’s “voluntary resignation” scheme is truly based on free will, or whether it has been operated as a de facto inducement to resign.

We demand the company’s accountability regarding information surrounding Certified Accountant Satoshi Saito

Currently, there is circulating a large rumor that relates to the former CEO of the company, Saito, who was once said to have been involved in the Angel Tax system in connection with a criminal case related to the so-called Angel Tax system, and that certain materials or information have been circulating regarding Saito, who was once said to have been involved as a shareholder of the Angel Tax system similar to the arrestee, and who advised or introduced the use of the system to former officers of the company who had received certain remuneration and start-up funds.

The labor union is not asserting that these allegations are factually correct.

Furthermore, just because a third party has been arrested or charged with an offense, it does not necessarily mean that there has been illegal activity on the part of Mr. Saito or the company.

However, if Mr. Saito was involved in an important position in the company's preparation for listing, the review of listing, or post-listing disclosure duties, the scope of matters that the company should verify is clear.

In other words, please answer the following questions: when did the company obtain the information regarding Mr. Saito? Did it conduct an internal investigation? Did it verify that the information did not contain any false statements in documents submitted to the listing application; did it review the impact on internal control and disclosure control; and did it consider the impact on internal control and disclosure control?

If an employee’s prior notification of absence or personal contract-related water bill has not been investigated in any way regarding the major doubts regarding the listed company executives who became a topic of discussion on terrestrial television news at the same time, then the priority in terms of compliance is by no means reasonable.

Companies that hold employees accountable for their actions also hold themselves accountable.

While repeatedly demanding strict explanations regarding the personal absence of the person in question and water bill issues, if the officers and others involved in these matters do not disclose the process of gathering information, investigating, or making a decision, it means that the standards of accountability within the same company are being applied differently. In both this paragraph and the investigation of this harassment case, I demand that the standards of verification not be changed based on the status of the other party.

9 Please officially make this matter a governance issue as a listed company.

The labor union is not claiming that it is necessary to report to the Financial Services Agency and the Tokyo Stock Exchange every time labor issues arise.

This is not a simple argument.

The question is whether this case is a one-off labor-related problem or whether it shows a cross-sectional deficiency in the disciplinary system, the promotion of resignation, harassment response, the reward and punishment committee, the directors' exercise of their human resources rights, internal audits, internal reporting, and disclosure control.

In the latter case, it is a matter of the internal control and governance of the listed company.

The “Report on Corporate Governance” II 2 and IV 1 published by your company on November 27, 2025 explains the oversight of the execution of operations by the Board of Directors, the audits through the inspection of important documents by the Audit & Supervisory Committee, and the operation of internal reporting channels for internal and external parties. These are the oversight and internal control mechanisms that your company itself has publicly disclosed, and in this case as well, we ask that the matter not be limited to the exchanges between the relevant parties but that it be formally handled in accordance with this mechanism.

In the same report, it is stated that the internal audit plan has been approved by the Representative Director and CEO, and that the results of the audit will be reported to the Representative Director and the Audit & Supervisory Committee. The Chairman of the Risk & Compliance Committee is also the Representative Director and CEO. In this case, since Mr. Watanabe’s involvement itself is the subject of investigation, relying solely on the usual reporting channels is not sufficient. The Audit & Supervisory Committee and the independent external directors who are not related to the subject matter of investigation should ensure that the investigation system and reporting channels are independent of the instructions and approval of the subject matter of investigation.

Therefore, please formally determine whether the matter should be formally submitted to the board of directors or the appropriate supervisory body, whether there are internal control issues, whether preventive measures are needed, whether the matter should be reported to the board of directors, whether it should be reported to the audit and supervisory committee, whether there are circumstances that require timely disclosure or other disclosure considerations, and whether there are circumstances that require reporting to the Financial Services Agency, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, or other relevant agencies.

And if you decide that disclosure is not necessary or reporting is not required, please keep the decision maker, the date of the decision, and the reasons for the decision as internal records.

Preservation of records and original materials related to decision-making

Your company must immediately preserve the original emails regarding this matter, all versions of the emails, records of creation, editing, and delivery, materials for selecting recipients, internal postings and chats, instructions for searching members, records of verification and reporting, communications between those involved, including Mr. Watanabe, recordings and notes of interviews, notices of absence, the person’s intention to remain, materials and minutes of the disciplinary committee, disciplinary measures and recommendations for termination, and documents regarding decisions on transfers.

In addition, please keep records of the office relocation, business and personal communications between Mr. Ito and the member, invitations to golf, images of LINE stickers and instructions for creation and use, communications regarding the change of responsibilities on September 30, the lease agreement for the company-owned housing, the housing regulations, and the breakdown of salary deductions, and documents related to water utilities acquired by the company. If there are any recordings of the relevant events on security cameras, please preserve them immediately to prevent their loss over the course of the retention period.

Please stop the deletion, modification, or overwriting of related records, including automatic deletion, account suspension, device replacement, and deletion due to expiration of the retention period. Please retain the original date, time, creator information, and other information. Please answer the following questions regarding the responsibility for preservation: the scope of the subject matter, the date and time of implementation, and whether any records that have already been lost have been lost. We do not allow the introduction of new informants to the union under the pretext of identifying the subject matter for preservation, or asking them to retrieve or delete the original documents.

10 The labor union does not demand collective bargaining.

At this time, the labor union is not requesting collective bargaining.

The labor union exercises the right to unionize and the right to collective action to protect the employment, dignity, health, and working conditions of its members.

However, it is unreasonable not to respond to this petition on the grounds that it is not a “collective bargaining request.”

The book includes confirmation of the individual’s refusal to resign, reporting harassment, reporting for safety reasons, objections to disciplinary measures, inquiries regarding compliance, and issues related to internal control as a listed company.

Please handle each case in accordance with the company's internal regulations and governance system.

The relationship between the individual's expression of will and the application, and the union's own demands

Requests for the expression of a person’s own will, the application for workers’ compensation benefits and necessary certificates are to be made separately by the person concerned. Our union will confirm the person’s disagreement with the resignation and provide advice, and in parallel, from our unique position of protecting the employment and health of our members, we are asking your company to cooperate in rectifying the situation, conducting an investigation, and taking the necessary steps.

Do not treat this document as a representation of the individual’s intention to resign, settle a dispute, or make a comprehensive declaration of power to exercise these rights on behalf of the individual. Please formally process both the demands of our union and the individual’s requests; please simultaneously send each response to the two email addresses specified in Section 4.

Assistance in applying for workers’ compensation and sick leave benefits, and proof of employer status

The labor union will support the claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on the fact that the employee’s adjustment disorder was caused by a series of psychological burdens at work. At the same time, in order to protect the members’ livelihoods while they wait for the certification, the union will make it clear to the members that they are applying for workers’ compensation while the application is pending or scheduled, and will proceed with the claim for disability benefits concurrently. The handling of both systems will be coordinated according to the decisions of each organization, based on the same diagnosis and factual circumstances.

Your company must provide the individual with the necessary labor insurance number, health insurance enrollment information, information regarding qualifications, the date of employment and the history of changes in employment status, attendance records, records of absence notifications, payroll records and salary statements, leave and sick leave systems, and annual paid leave balance, as well as employment rules, housing regulations, and continuing employment regulations within the scope necessary for the individual to apply and for information sharing with the union. Simultaneously, send them to both addresses in Section 4.

Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Act stipulates that employers must assist an employee if the employee is unable to take action themselves due to an accident. Article 23, paragraph 2 stipulates that employers must promptly provide proof if requested to provide necessary proof. Article 33 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Health Insurance Act also does not allow employers to refuse to provide necessary proof without a legitimate reason. Upon submission of the official forms and necessary information by the employee, please promptly provide proof of the fact of employment, leave, and wages that can be verified.

If your company has a different view regarding the occupational injury insurance issue, you may submit your opinion to the competent labor standards supervision agency in accordance with Article 23.2 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. Please distinguish this opinion from the proof of verifiable facts. Do not stop the application entirely on the grounds of the internal investigation not being completed or the company’s view that it does not recognize an occupational injury, or the refusal to attend in person or by phone.

Do not require the resignation agreement, disclosure of union members and information providers, explanation of the relationship with the union, or interviews with Mr. Ito or Mr. Iijima as conditions for proof or submission of documents. Do not hinder the claim by not recording the actual days on which the person actually worked, the days on which they were unable to work due to illness, the status of wage payment, and the doctor’s opinion accurately, or by misinterpreting the absence from work as unilateral and without permission.

Even if your company does not cooperate, we have no plans to stop the person’s application. We will submit the relevant documents to the competent labor standards supervision agency or the participating insurance company, along with the reasons for the lack of proof, and request confirmation from the respective authorities. Please proceed with the review of benefits and the company’s harassment investigation and personnel matters without delaying either one of them on the grounds of any one of them.

Timeframe for responses and immediate measures to be taken

Upon receipt of this document, immediately cease all attempts to investigate members, sexual harassment, intimidating follow-ups, and pressure to resign. Strictly enforce the email communication in Section 4 and simultaneous transmission to both addresses. Do not wait until the investigation is complete to ensure the safety of the person and preserve relevant records.

Please respond within 3 business days after receiving the book with the details of the person responsible for the company’s response, the email contact system, the current health care measures, and the status of implementing evidence preservation. Please clearly state that this does not constitute a termination of employment agreement.

Within 7 business days of receiving this document, please respond to each request with details regarding whether to implement it, the details of the implementation, the specific reasons for not implementing it or withholding a response, supporting documentation, the person responsible, and the planned date of implementation. Even if all investigations have not been completed, please respond immediately to the matters discovered and the measures that are immediately possible, and indicate the planned date of implementation for any unanswered questions.

Within 14 days of the receipt of this document, please provide the responsible person, subject, method, schedule, and reporting destination for the independent investigation. Upon receiving the completed form from the person, please promptly obtain the business owner certificate and return it within 5 business days as a guideline. If there are any deficiencies, please specify the specific location and the necessary supplement, and proceed with the necessary actions first. These are the deadlines set by this document, and they do not imply that you can postpone necessary measures until the deadline.

If no action is taken or if the unfair treatment continues, we will proceed independently with the individual’s benefit claim and also urge the relevant labor standards supervisory agency, prefectural labor bureau, and labor commission, among others, to take consultation, reporting, or remedial action in accordance with their respective authority. This is not intended to call for the holding of collective bargaining, but is a measure to address the damages outlined in this document and illegal treatment.

11 Conclusion

The request from the company regarding this matter is not complicated.

The union member will not resign.

Since the company itself has explicitly stated that it is not a “dismissal” but rather a “voluntary resignation,” please respect the refusal of the member in question.

And instead of continuing to discuss whether to recommend dismissal, please examine why so many interviews, disciplinary measures, and fact-finding hearings were repeated in such a short period of time, why interviews were continued even when there were health-related issues, why personal life issues were also considered in personnel management, why disciplinary measures and dismissal recommendations were taken concurrently, and why directors who report harassment are involved in personnel decisions.

If a company truly values compliance, then before questioning employees for absences or water bills repeatedly, they should first examine their own decision-making process.

What the union members are asking for is not special treatment.

The ability to work normally until retirement age. Respect for one's personality and health. If disciplinary action is taken, receive a fair procedure.

If you file a harassment complaint, it will be investigated independently.

And applying the governance and compliance standards set by listed companies to oneself as well.

That's all there is to it.

The union member has had a strong attachment to the company since joining it, and has always believed that he or she would like to work at this company for the rest of his or her life, even after retirement. He or she sincerely regrets that the listed company has instead moved in a direction that puts pressure on workers, and hopes that the company will improve to become a normal and healthy listed company. This spirit of loyalty and commitment to improvement should not be turned into hostility toward the company or a desire to resign.

Our union has decided not to end its support with the mere acquisition of benefits for the member concerned; instead, we will accompany them with respect for their will, providing support for their recovery and daily life, improving the workplace environment, and allowing them to work according to their health status, including the possibility of reemployment after actual retirement. There is no contradiction between receiving the necessary medical treatment and health care and the desire to work for a long time. Our union does not accept a policy that would force the member to retire; we reject this approach that would end the problem.

We ask the company not to minimize this complaint as a conflict with an employee, but to officially handle it as a governance issue at the board level.

That's all.