Now, let’s start with the unusual title: the “Chairman’s Office Director,” Ms. Ito Miwa, Director of the company Last Mile One. She is called that both internally and externally. Chairman, Office, Director—the words make a rather deliberate impression of the company’s core.
According to information received from employees, Mr. Ito is officially using this title as his responsibilities. However, since the publication of an article that highlighted Mr. Ito’s past statements, employees have been repeatedly expressing doubts and concerns regarding his relationship with Mr. Watanabe.
When we hear the term "director in charge of the chairman's office," it is often conveyed that they are close to the chairman. So what role does the position of managing what and deciding what have? When we look for an explanation that matches the weight of the title, we find that the "chairman's office" role is described in the company's own public documents. The story doesn't end with the number of words in the business card.
How do employees hear the explanation that Ms. Ito is "close to the chairman"?
In an article dated August 27, the union reported on information that Mr. Ito himself had repeatedly told those around him that Mr. Watanabe was trying to persuade him. This is information from an employee who had directly heard the explanation. For details,Past articles that covered the details of Ito's interactions with his own circleIt is being introduced here.
What has arrived this time are the voices from employees who have been working at the company every day since the article was published. This is a new understanding that indicates that Mr. Ito has shown his closeness to Mr. Watanabe, and the overlapping title of “director in charge of the chairman’s office” raises the question of whether it is a position within the company or a sign of Watanabe’s status as a close associate.
What employees want to know here is not a correlation chart of personal life but a command chart of work. After being told that this person is close to the chairman, and since that person is in charge of the chairman’s office, should they consult the director in charge if there is a problem with the chairman’s decision? When the chairman’s intentions and the company’s interests differ, which one should be used as the standard to make decisions?
What should be evaluated as a company position is what tasks are assigned to you, what abilities you have to perform the duties, and what achievements you have brought to the company. It would be a shame for a conversation about how you are personally thought of by the chairman to be used as a substitute for explaining your authority in your position. What is required of a board member’s title is a description of the work, not a demonstration of friendship.
Of course, the information that the person has said that they did so, and the actual personal relationships and personnel reasons are all matters that should be confirmed. That is why I would like companies to explain the reasons for appointing officers and their duties, evaluations, and instructions, without relying on public or private distinctions. In a company where employees have to read organizational charts to figure out the relationships between the chairman and the rest of the staff, even having a few copies of the operational manual is not enough.
In the company's public documents, the chairman's office is located midway through the disclosure route.
last mileOfficial Board Member IntroductionIn that case, Ms. Ito Miwa is listed as a "Director and Executive Officer." And, as the company publicly discloses,Corporate Governance Report dated November 27, 2025If you look at the 10th page, the “Chairman’s Office” appears in the disclosure process.
- The “initiative” is submitted to the Chairman’s Office from each business division, management division, and major subsidiaries.
- From the chairman's office, the proposal is submitted to the board of directors; from the board of directors, it is approved by the chairman's office.
- From the chairman's office to the management planning office: "Request for disclosure," from the management planning office: "Disclosure."
In other words, the chairman’s office outlined in this report is not depicted as a place solely for handling the chairman’s schedule and visitors. It is placed on a route that conveys company information to the board of directors and leads to its disclosure after approval. If one claims to have the “responsibility of the chairman’s office,” the first requirement is to explain the relationship with this disclosed role.
If the current operations are being changed, please indicate the revised job allocation and responsible person. Although it is not possible to see all of Ms. Ito’s personal authority from just the published figures, it is possible to compare the company-published system with the title assigned to employees. This is a rather unusual title, and it has no longer ended with a laugh.
If Watanabe has information about the indictment and is briefing senior executives on the suspected crimes of former executives and the disclosure of other companies, one can ask how that information was considered through the company’s official channels. Does Ito’s responsibility include the task of receiving that information and bringing it to the board of directors? Was the decision made that it was a matter related to the company, or that it was separate from company operations? What is the reason for that decision?
It’s not unreasonable for employees to be frustrated if the function that tells other companies to “provide the information” doesn’t work well, and if the function that leads to the company’s decision on disclosure isn’t explained. Since there’s a decent flowchart, I would like to see it show what actually happened. Arrows aren’t just a convenient way to convey information; they’re not a device that can convey information just by drawing them.
The duty of loyalty under company law is different from loyalty to the chairman.
The arrangement of having a director in charge of the meeting room is not unique to other companies. The problem lies not in the name itself, but in what the company is actually managing as its profit. If the function is necessary for the last mile and is being operated under appropriate authority and supervision, then it should be indicated.
Regarding the direction of the duties of directors, Article 355 of the Companies Act clearly stipulates this.
Directors must comply with laws and regulations, the Articles of Incorporation, and resolutions of the General Meeting of Shareholders, and faithfully perform their duties for the benefit of the Company.
What is written in the article is "for the sake of the company." It is not "for the sake of the chairman" or "for the sake of the chairman's well-being." There may be situations where assisting the chairman is beneficial to the company. However, it should not be possible to skip the process of confirming the chairman's requests in light of the company's interests.
Furthermore, regarding the board of directors of companies with an audit committee, Article 399(13), paragraph 2, of the Companies Act stipulates that the oversight of the directors’ performance of duties is a duty. When a matter arises that should be judged as a company decision, the director responsible for the relevant matters should not be allowed to abdicate their role to merely relay instructions.
Even if there are people on hand to deliver directives from the chairman as quickly as possible, and even if there are people who verify those directives in light of the company’s interests, even with the fastest communication, supervision will not be strengthened. Organizations that are skilled only in confirming the details of decisions without reviewing them and spreading them within the company will quickly make erroneous decisions. If you are willing to take the time to carefully check everything before shipping, please at least ask for confirmation of the contents before shipping.
Mr. Ito would appreciate it if you could explain, in terms of the company's interests, what you approved, what you modified, and what you stopped, rather than the closeness to Mr. Watanabe. The destination of the loyalty obligation is the company. There is no setting to automatically forward to the chairman's office.
In the Watanabe Seicho office, there is a president's office, and in addition, there is a director in charge. Please indicate the division of roles.
The "Watanabe Secreterial Office" that the union has been raising issues about has been pointed out to have a relationship with operations that cannot be covered by words like schedule adjustment or handling of visitors. In previous articles, LG Asset's Chika Yuichi, who was introduced as the head of the Watanabe Secreterial Office, has been mentioned as being responsible for responding to investors and handling operational matters.
Regarding the alleged financial instrument trading law violations covered by the same article, despite the unusual late-statute-barred arrest by Fukuoka Central Police, the article states that the three cases involving Mr. Watanabe, Ms. Machiko, and LG Asset Corporation were dismissed without charge due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Based on that decision, we have requested the company to verify what roles the company’s titles and personnel held and who managed them.
Another article also covers the information that the private secretary of Watanabe was involved in the negotiations with the companies using a different labor union, as well as the information that manpower and equipment from the last mile were used. Therefore, I also asked about who directed the work and how they separated the company’s operations from the individual’s activities.
In the past, the secretary function and the current president’s office have been pointed out as having what kind of formal organizational relationship? What tasks are being shared as separate departments? Are there any overlapping workloads or personnel? Where is the cost borne, and who is responsible for verifying its appropriateness? I would appreciate it if you could provide a table showing those arrangements.
Even though there are multiple points of contact to support the chairman, if each has their own necessary tasks, I can explain them. The trouble is that when asking for work, everything is under the chairman’s direct control, but when a problem arises, each becomes a separate organization, and the only way to know where responsibility lies is to be left in the dark. Please make sure that the design is not one point of instruction and a maze of accountability.
And since you have a director in charge, Mr. Ito is expected to manage that boundary. Not only should you show employees the existence of the chairman's office, but also indicate at what stage and by whom requests that should not be done in company operations are to be stopped. The number of people who support and the number who are able to stop are not always the same.
It's a job of explaining the company's profits, rather than a room that showcases the company's size.
What is strongly conveyed to me by the employees this time is the question of whether the title and the company’s reality are in line with each other. For those who are juggling personnel and time in their day-to-day work, it’s no small matter what kind of organization exists around the chairman and what the reason for appointing directors is.
Whether a company is large or small, the indirect departments need to be explained their roles and needs. Just because a room is named the Chairman’s Office does not mean the company’s value increases. What employees and business partners want to know is how that department supports the business, reduces which risks, and contributes to which management decisions.
If the duties of the chairman’s office include legal matters and external communications, it is even more necessary to separate the interests of the company and the chairman’s personal interests. If the company is responsible for costs and personnel for an individual’s dispute, please explain the company’s purpose, scope of responsibility, and approval method. Just because one person said “the chairman is needed” does not mean that it was necessary for the company.
While asking for a description of the job’s purpose and achievements is a goal of the job, if only the department closest to the chairman can omit the details due to intimacy or special circumstances, the employees will not be convinced. The field is not there to make the business card look good; the chairman’s office is where the company spends money, and the chairman’s office’s work should be explained in company-speak as well.
Increasing the number of departments is not the same as increasing the supervisory function. Only the mechanism for supporting the chairman needs to be improved; the mechanism for seeking confirmation from the chairman must also be in place. To eliminate employee discomfort, it is necessary to specifically indicate that the vacancy does not exist.
How is the chairman's office managed when the chairman says they have obtained the indictment?
Returning to the discussion of the indictment that I had left aside earlier, the union published an article on September 14, reporting that based on an internal report from a senior manager and secretary at Last One Mile, Watanabe was reportedly using information about the indictment and the investigation to seek publicity for his other companies. The article stated that the company’s expenses, personnel, working hours, and secretarial functions were being used for this effort.
The same article also addresses the issue of statements and actions reported as being directed towards killing or having the stock listed on the stock exchange abolished. If such explanations are being conveyed internally regarding the handling of former executives, etc., it is necessary to verify what the surrounding directors know and how they responded. The same applies to Mr. Ito; explanations should be provided based on the responsibility of the relevant department and the actual understanding and involvement.
The union of prosecutors from the other media outlet, "The Wolf Union," alsoAn article questioning the source and use of Watanabe's indictment informationThis issue is raising the question that it is not enough to just possess a copy; you should also verify what, when, by whom, and in what capacity the copy was received, and what you did with it afterwards.
Even on the last mile side, please clarify whether this information was acquired and reviewed as part of the company’s operations or handled as personal information for Mr. Watanabe. If it was stored on the company’s terminal and instructions for explanation or external communication were given to company personnel, who did they check with regarding the purpose of the operation and approval?
I would like to ask Mr. Ito, who is in charge of the president’s office, to explain whether he received the materials, whether he instructed or approved the response, whether he recognized the problematic remarks, and whether he reported them to the Audit and Supervisory Committee. If you are not in charge of this matter, please provide the basis for determining that you are not in charge, along with the official responsibilities of the person in charge. This is a question designed to verify the actual work that corresponds to the title rather than determining individual actions based on title.
If an organization is able to respond quickly to requests from the chairman or requests from the chairman, but when asked about the appropriateness of the chairman’s actions, the person responsible becomes unknown, it indicates a lack of support and supervision. This is a situation where there are people who know the chairman’s plans, but no one who can identify the actions that put the company in danger.
If the president's office and secretarial functions are to gather company information and personnel, then management must be involved to ensure the convenience. If a company gives individuals such great executive authority, it is necessary to verify whether that power is being used for the company's benefit. Even if you put together a magnificent organization around Watanabe, it will not be a structure where employees can feel secure if no one can stop them in the end.
Ito Miwa, Watanabe Makoto, the Board of Directors, and the Audit and Supervisory Committee
In response to questions from employees, the Last Mile Labor Union requests specific answers regarding the following matters: please explain the internal roles and responsibilities of the company, the system the company has implemented, and how the actual operations are being handled.
- When and by whom was the title "Director in Charge of the Chairman's Office" used by Ito Miwa in both internal and external matters? Please indicate the division of duties, decision-making authority, reporting line, and responsibilities in the course of work.
- What is the formal organizational relationship between the Chairman's Office and the secretarial functions of Mr. Watanabe, whom we discussed in a previous article? Please explain the division of duties, personnel, costs, command and control, and management responsibilities.
- What role does the chairman's office play in the disclosed disclosure channel, and how is Mr. Ito handling his responsibilities? If the current operation is being changed, please indicate the timing, reason, and current person responsible for the change.
- Regarding the prosecution documents describing the information obtained by Watanabe, have Mr. Ito or the Chairman’s Office been involved in receiving, storing, verifying the contents, communicating externally, or incurring expenses? Please answer the matters in which they were involved and the procedures for approval and reporting thereof.
- Regarding the alleged statements and actions, such as “kill them” related to the handling of former executives, etc., how did Mr. Ito and the Audit and Supervisory Committee ascertain when and what they understood? Did they take action to confirm, rectify, and address the safety and working environment of the relevant parties?
- What is the standard for distinguishing between the chairman's personal disputes and the company's business operations? When the company provides personnel and expenses, who other than the chairman himself verifies the company's profit, adequacy, and whether there is a conflict of interest?
- Does the company understand that employees are questioning the roles and relationships between Ito and Watanabe? Instead of being based on personal familiarity, are they explaining organizational operations based on job duties, authority, and evaluation criteria, and providing a channel for employees to verify these without fear of disadvantage?
- Who will independently verify the company’s information management regarding this matter, the operations of the Chairman’s Office, and the actions of the directors? Please provide records of related instructions, decisions, and reports, and indicate plans to preserve these records and explain the results and necessary improvements.
- Please explain to the general public the difference between the chairman's office and the secretary's office.
We seek a system that not only supports the chairman but also protects the company.
The union has received requests from the executives themselves to improve the working environment, and has already sent formal inquiries to the board of directors and the audit committee. The employees’ voices in this case also show what the workers on the ground are concerned about regarding the actions and behavior of the management and the related departments.
Explaining the existence of the responsible department is one thing; addressing the doubts about that department is another. Instead of looking for who has said what, please find out why employees feel that the company's interests are being prioritized over the chairman's personal wishes.
- Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman’s Office, the Secretary, and the Board of Directors, and explain the division of company operations and individual activities, the burden of costs, and the approval procedures in a way that employees can understand.
- Please conduct independent verification from the subject of verification regarding handling of information related to the indictment, external communication, problematic statements, and the use of company resources, and preserve the necessary records.
- With regard to information related to the Chairman, please ensure that a mechanism is in place to properly link the Audit & Supervisory Committee, the accounting auditor, and any necessary disclosure decisions, and take specific corrective action for any identified deficiencies.
- Prevent any adverse treatment based on consultation or information provision, and provide the necessary support to those who voice concerns about the workplace. Explain the results of the verification and the progress of improvements with due consideration for personal information.
Structures that leave departments close to the chairman with no authority to deal with issues regarding the chairman create a gap in the company’s oversight function. There is no need to add more room names to explain what the company is and what it does. Show that the current positions are fulfilling the current responsibilities.
We will continue to verify and disseminate information that has not yet been published.
In addition to the articles we have already published, the association has received many other information requests. While some of the information we are verifying is not yet published as articles, there are also some that have not yet been published as articles. The articles currently published are not all the issues we are aware of.
In the future, we will continue to collate the information already received, records that have already been verified, and explanations from companies and parties, and will disseminate items of public interest in a systematic manner. If the company provides specific answers and any errors are confirmed or improvements are made, we will also provide information about those findings. The focus will not be on impressions of individuals, but on what the company has done and what has changed.
We would like to remind all employees that when they receive work requests from the Chairman’s Office or the Secretary’s Office, they should review the request details, the company’s purpose, the person who made the request, the person who approved it, and the person to whom it was reported as normal business records. If the explanation is vague, please organize which department you checked and what the response was. It is important to keep the records that you can legally retain and verify intact.
Employees who are responsible for the day-to-day operations should not be burdened with explaining things later. Those who have the authority to give instructions should be responsible for explaining the content and purpose of those instructions. If you have been forced to proceed based on the excuse that “it’s the chairman’s order,” I would like you to refrain from minimizing the matter by saying, “It was the decision of the person in charge.”
I ask that the duties of directors be assigned so that "managing" does not become "appreciating."
If Mr. Ito is to take charge of the chairman’s office, I expect him to fulfill the role of confirming the chairman’s requests in light of the company’s interests and making appropriate judgments and reporting on them. If he merely observes the chairman’s remarks, conveys the strength of his demeanor to those around him, and only applauds when a problem arises, then “managing” will be mistaken for “admiring.” Instead of correcting the kanji on business cards, please demonstrate the difference in actual work.
The Last Mile Labor Union is not aiming to destroy the company. Our goal is for the company to remain a healthy publicly listed company that can operate sustainably, and protect the employment, livelihood, health, and well-being of the people who work there. To achieve this, we examine whether the company’s resources are being used for personal conflicts or convenience among management members, and we relay the voices from the workplace.
If there is a secretarial function supporting Mr. Watanabe, a chairman's office, and a director in charge, please explain how that system has worked to protect the company. The prosecution documents explain that the board and management have been very vocal about this, and they are demanding to know what the other directors and management department are doing. In addition to the mechanism that gives power to the chairman, a mechanism is needed to ensure that that power is aligned with the company's interests.
The president's office is a department within the company. It is not a place to transform the entire company into an organization that serves the personal interests of the chairman. If Director Ito Miwa is to be in charge of the president's office, please explain the title not by being close to the chairman, but by taking responsibility for the company.