Instead of looking down at your pants, look directly at the declaration. Request an independent investigation from the front desk personnel regarding human resources and accounting/tax matters.
Reports have been received from male employees regarding sexual harassment by Director Ito Miwa regarding prolonged eye contact. The statement being released today questions who protects the company that received the report and who determines the response based on their instructions, in addition to the act itself.
What directors should be concerned with is not the physical well-being of employees, but the complaints of harm received from those employees. However, when looking at the company’s response, it seems that the main focus of the complaint itself and the responsibility of those who decide on the response are not being properly addressed.
The counter is being rotated. So, did the person who was instructing from behind change?
Regarding the man who filed a complaint about sexual harassment by a female director, the company designated a female employee as the next point of contact. What the union is concerned about is the fact that without confirming the person’s wishes, the company selected Mr. Ito, who is the subject of the complaint, to be involved in the selection process, and placed an employee directly under Mr. Iijima Yoko, another subject of the complaint.
It’s not that this is illegal because the person in charge is a woman. It’s that it was selected based on the victim’s details and their wishes. Who instructed, who approved the response, and who reports the results? Without confirmation, I don’t understand how even changing the sender’s name would constitute an independent response from the reporting party.
If the side that has been accused of causing harm chooses the person to respond to the victim and manages that response, if that is described as protecting the person, first of all, please clarify the mechanism. Just changing the signage at the counter does not mean that the decision-maker who is behind it will also change.
In the next public question, I have already pointed out the need to separate the reporting of damages to Mr. Ito from management governance centered on Mr. Watanabe Makoto, and to confirm the relationship between instructions, approval, and investigations.
The call center company is mishandling the business needs of its employees.
Last One Mile is a publicly traded company that operates a call center business. Listening to the needs of customers, recording them, and communicating them accurately to the appropriate person should be a fundamental part of daily operations.
However, what the employee himself requested in writing was cooperation in applying for an occupational injury claim and a parallel procedure for medical benefits to protect his livelihood while waiting for the certification. In contrast, the company email on October 13 provided information about medical benefits and leave, but did not provide a response regarding the request for cooperation in applying for an occupational injury claim.
Companies that accept customer inquiries often overlook the central part when dealing with their employees. While the gaze on the waist is a problem, the application documents that should be read are not visible to the eye. Management needs to first ensure that the right people are looking at the right things and that the right voices are being heard.
Last time, in response to the person’s request for cooperation in filing the application, I received a reply asking for the union’s membership list and financial statements. Even if I replace the question with another topic, the original issue will not disappear.
With that survey system, can management’s accounting and tax matters also be examined?
This statement calls for an objective verification of the involvement in fraudulent accounting and tax evasion. It also addresses the information that the union has received that Mr. Watanabe and Mr. Nakano had arranged a deal before Mr. Nakano was arrested.
It’s not a suggestion that they are engaging in cover-up accounting or tax evasion because there are problems with harassment prevention. The question is whether the specific suspicions can be investigated independently of the management’s intentions. If the management’s internal reporting system for officers allows for the reporting of harassment to be handled within the framework of their involvement, who will decide the scope and conclusions of the investigation regarding the accounting and tax issues involved by the officers themselves?
The union is also demanding that information regarding the recording of sales during the listing application period be cross-checked with contracts, actual operations, ledgers, entries and withdrawals, and approval records. In both harassment and accounting, what should be verified is not the extent to which the management is able to explain things; it is what actually took place.
The union of prosecutors at the separate media outlet "The Wolf Union" is also conducting public questioning of the investigative agencies regarding the relationship between Watanabe and Nakano, the communication between the parties, and the verification of documents. Please see this in conjunction with the need to compare the explanations provided by the company with the records of the parties involved.
Related articles (Prosecutor's Union):Why was Count Nakano Keishi able to say that he "aligned himself with the national tax authorities and the prosecution"?
We will release a statement from the labor union
Below is a statement from the union regarding employee personal information for the Board of Directors and Audit & Supervisory Committee. It includes the process of appointing the responsible person, independence from the chain of command, unanswered requests for workers’ compensation claims, a system to investigate accounting and tax-related issues, and questions regarding oversight by the Audit & Supervisory Committee and external directors.
Management that demands detailed explanations from employees must also be able to answer questions about themselves with the same specificity. What listed company directors should be aware of is not the employees' bodies, but their own judgment and responsibility.
Director Ito stares at the crotch of a male employee. Next, the company did something else: they put female employees in charge of handling the complaints.
Last1Mile Inc.
Members of the Board of Directors and Audit and Supervisory Committee
We are the Last One Mile Labor Union.
Regarding the report by Director Ito Miwa that the male executive was staring into the crotch of the employee for a long period of time, our union has serious questions.
First of all, the job of a director is not to observe the backs of employees.
Article 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act requires employers to take measures to prevent sexual behavior in the workplace from harming the working environment, regardless of gender.
It is not a law that it is okay to touch the body.
Secondly, in the case of a man who has accused a female director of sexual harassment, the decision was to immediately designate a female employee as the next point of contact.
Being a female employee is not illegal in itself.
The problem lies in the fact that without confirming the person’s wishes, and also in that Mr. Ito, who is subject to reporting, was involved in selecting the person, and that he allegedly placed a female employee directly under Mr. Iijima, who is also subject to reporting.
In this way, simply changing the person in charge does not mean that they are no longer independent of the command and control system of the person subject to the declaration.
How can we prove that this is not personnel action that prioritizes the convenience of the person who made the sexual harassment complaint over the person who reported it?
Thirdly, your company is a publicly listed company that operates a call center business.
Listening, recording, and properly handling customer feedback should be the foundation of a business.
However, the company has not responded to requests from its employees to cooperate with the occupational injury and illness application process, and is only providing information on medical benefits.
Companies that listen to customer feedback do not listen to employee complaints. While the gaze of employees’ eyes is a problem, they do not pay attention to the crucial document called an occupational injury claim.
This is not just a matter of irony; it is a question of whether the basic principles of internal control—accurate information gathering, transmission to the appropriate responsible person, and taking the necessary action—are functioning.
Fourthly, this internal control issue also applies to accounting and tax management.
The union demands that the company undergo an objective verification regarding its involvement in fraudulent accounting and tax evasion. There is also information that corroborates the close relationship between Watanabe Makoto and Nakano Kyoshiro, including that they had arranged for a deal before Nakano Kyoshiro was arrested.
Simply pointing to deficiencies in harassment prevention cannot be taken as confirmation of involvement in fraudulent accounting or tax evasion. However, in organizations where inconvenient reports from management are not properly handled, questions arise about whether independent verification of internal reports that point out accounting irregularities or tax issues will function.
If it is not even possible to independently investigate reports of sexual harassment, then who and how will the management itself investigate the accounting and tax-related suspicions that may be involved?
To answer this question, it is necessary not only to conduct harassment investigations but also to specifically demonstrate the independence of management in internal reporting systems, accounting audits, and tax compliance.
The union requests an answer regarding the following matters:
- The background of Mr. Ito’s involvement in appointing the female staff member, and the reason why he did not confirm the person’s intention.
- The reason for using the female employee directly subordinate to Mr. Iijima as the point of contact, and the independence of the investigation and reporting system.
- Reason for excluding the request for cooperation in filing an occupational injury claim from the response.
- A specific suspicion-receiving and investigation system regarding the involvement in accounting manipulation and tax evasion, as well as a verification method independent of management.
- Status of the investigation and supervision by the Audit and Supervisory Committee and the Outside Directors.
Finally, I would like to say this.
The first skill that the management of call center companies should acquire is not the ability to observe employees' bodies, but the ability to accurately understand their complaints.
And what is required of directors of publicly traded companies is not to avert their eyes from inconvenient facts, but to face them head-on.
That's all.
Last Mile Labor Union