Last time, when we asked the employee to cooperate with their own recovery and the application for benefits, all we received from the company was a long explanation demanding the employee’s union membership card and financial statements. Subsequently, on October 13, a new person from the company sent us a notice regarding leave of absence and sick pay benefits, but the handling of the workers’ compensation claim specified by the employee was not included this time either.
Moreover, the simultaneous transmission to the union specified repeatedly by the person was not made; it is again a communication only to the person in question. Even when the responsible person changes, the failure to answer the core issue and the effort to make the person transfer the information to another person seem to be neatly passed on.
"Prioritizing occupational injury" is not an obscure legal term.
The person’s claim in Paragraph 3 requests cooperation in applying for workers’ compensation, and in Paragraph 4, it calls for parallel procedures for medical benefits. This is a procedure to protect the person’s livelihood while awaiting workers’ compensation approval; it also states that the claim of work-related causes must not be withdrawn. Regarding the sentence “seeking both,” even if only one of the procedures is pursued, it does not mean that the person has answered for both.
Either they didn't read it or didn't understand it, or they just ignored it. Regardless of the reason, it should have been obvious before sending that the answer to the question "where is the response regarding the occupational injury?" was not available. It's not that they were avoiding the question; it's just that the company itself has been adding no answers.
Before we discuss the union qualifications of others in depth, we would like to begin by carefully reading the concise document carefully written by your employee. Is the procedure even including the employee who is on sick leave having to repeat the same text over and over again for the management and executives?
Even if the name tag of the person in charge is changed, the command and control system does not change.
In this case, the issue is the sexual harassment suffered over a long period of time by Director Ito Miwa, as well as the intimidating questioning by General Manager Iijima Yuko, the human resources and general affairs director. While repeatedly asking for explanations regarding the employees’ private lives, who is stopping the actions of the HR side and who is investigating them? This point has already been asked in previous articles.
In the current selection process that the union has come to know of, it appears that Mr. Ito was involved in the selection process and that a person directly under Mr. Iijima is in charge. Although the union requested independent handling from the individuals subject to the reporting requirement, the person in question chose to appoint the person in question, indicating that the person is under the direct command of the person in question. So what is the difference between that and independent handling?
The problem is not who appears in the email’s From field; it’s who directs, who approves the response, and who receives the patient’s medical information. Even if the system chosen by the actor shows that the patient’s wishes and medical condition have been taken into account and that they are “encouraged to focus on their recovery with peace of mind,” this will not create peace of mind simply through a greeting message.
Covering up labor accidents and corporate responsibility are not covered in the administrative guidelines.
Through the many information provided, the union is also calling for the full disclosure of the details of the cover-up of occupational accidents. We are not speculating about the problem based on this email alone. We are demanding that the company’s records be examined to reveal who has been aware of the issue, who has given instructions, and who has stopped reporting and taking action.
We are already asking that the complaints about Mr. Ito be not limited to a single officer’s issue, and that the management governance centered on Mr. Watanabe Makoto and independent investigations be verified as well. Introducing the person in charge and providing general procedural guidance will not undo these questions and the deadlines for responses.
They force others to explain themselves, and avoid explaining their own involvement and decision-making process. This pattern is also problematic in the investigative union of the separate media outlet “The Wolf Union”; the article that covered the Last Mile and Watanabe and others also raised the issue. When one is on the questioning side, they are strict; when one is on the being questioned side, the conversation suddenly stops. It is impossible to use accountability based on the other party.
Related articles (Prosecutor's Union):The Kagoshima District Public Prosecutor’s Office and Kumamoto National Tax Agency must not allow the “systematic silence” surrounding the last mile case and Watanabe Makoto and Nakano Kyoshi accused.
We will publish the protest and rectification request letter from the union.
Below is a protest and corrective request from the union to management and supervisory bodies, taking into account the protection of personal information. The request concerns handling of workers’ compensation claims, the process of appointing responsible personnel, contact without the person’s shared consent, and the verification and approval system for company responses. The request calls for rectification and timely disclosure.
What the union is asking for is not just the number of responses or the level of courtesy in the closing remarks. It is simply reading the written content, answering the questions asked, and taking the necessary action. Please confirm with the management of the listed company the current situation that must be explained from this point forward, along with the documents.
Timely disclosure regarding the concealment of occupational accidents, rectification of harassment response systems, and confirmation and approval of responses by management
Dear colleagues
We are the Last One Mile Labor Union.
We confirmed the email dated October 13 that was sent to the member of the union, and their response to it.
Regarding the individual requests from the employees themselves, please respond in accordance with the details specified by the employees themselves. On behalf of the union, we hereby protest and demand rectification and explanation regarding the management and administrative issues outlined in this response, the labor accident concealment that the union has identified, and the response system involving those who have filed complaints of harassment as follows.
1. First, please verify the documents submitted by the employee as written.
The union members’ application involves proceeding with the injury benefit payment concurrently to protect their livelihood while waiting for the recognition of the occupational injury. The individual’s application states that the third paragraph specifies occupational injury, the fourth paragraph specifies the injury benefit payment separately, and that the claim regarding work-related causes is not withdrawn.
“Prioritizing one side” and “moving forward simultaneously with the other side” are not relationships that cannot be understood without going through specialized legal interpretation. From the sentence that states “we are seeking both,” simply taking out one side does not mean that we have answered for both. This is a very basic problem that precedes legal interpretation, namely reading the content written in the text.
Despite this, the current response only addresses the core issue of occupational injury. Did they not read the submitted documents? Or did they not understand the meaning even after reading them? Or did they intentionally exclude the subject matter from the response?
Please explain specifically in the answer creator and the person who confirmed and approved it, which one it is.
If it was intentionally removed, then it should have been easily foreseen that the next question would be “where is the answer regarding workers’ compensation?” Had they decided that they could handle the issue, there would be no question about their decision. Rather than being able to avoid answering the question, they are merely leaving behind a record of the proceedings as their own documents, in which they did not answer the stated claim.
The member of the union in question is currently an employee of your company. Moreover, despite being in a state of need for rest and treatment, the company has prepared and submitted the claim in a concise and thorough manner, clearly organizing the subject matter, purpose, items, and method of communication so that it is easy for the company to verify it.
Even documents from such employees cannot accurately grasp the core points, and if they are simply asked to repeat the same explanation to the person concerned, there can be no serious doubt that the basic operations of document verification by management and executives, transfer to the responsible department, and approval of responses are functioning properly.
Is it part of the procedure for a sick employee to repeat the same explanation over and over again for the company executives? While requiring detailed explanations from employees, the approach of not properly handling the employee’s carefully written explanations does not establish the prerequisite for accountability on the part of those who demand accountability.
Is it also due to the same reason that there are no specific answers provided for the core issues outlined in previous petitions and inquiries? Is it because they don’t want to answer, or because they want to answer but are unable to grasp the content of the question at the stage of identifying it? In the current approach, there is not even a distinction between the two.
Before providing a lengthy explanation of another person’s qualifications or suitability, first demonstrate a system in place that allows you to accurately read the documents received from your company and create and approve responses to those questions. This concerns the responsibilities of the management and executives who direct, confirm, and approve that response, not just the individual responsible for that task.
2. We demand that the union rectify and disclose information regarding the concealment of occupational accidents that it has come to know.
Our union has learned through numerous sources that there has been a history of workers’ compensation claims being hidden at your company. This is not the first time we have pointed out the possibility by looking at just one email.
Simply dealing with this issue by a single incident of information leakage by the responsible person is insufficient. It is necessary to verify it as an organizational operation regarding the concealment of past industrial injury cases, the company’s decision, reporting, recording, and personnel handling after receiving a report of an accident or illness.
Please provide information on the relevant incidents and periods, the departments and officials involved, the management team that instructed and approved the handling policy, and the status of compliance with statutory reporting obligations. Please collate accident and illness reports, internal reports, attendance records, worker death and injury reports, and other related materials, and promptly proceed with the necessary reporting, corrections, and damage recovery.
What the union is seeking is an examination of the company’s handling of the matter and its decision-making. We do not accept that identifying the source of information should be the starting point of the investigation, or that the submission of the source’s name or any material that could lead to their identification should be a requirement for a response. The company should examine the records it holds and the decisions it made itself.
The union requests that the company disclose the actual nature of this cover-up of occupational accidents, the involvement of management and human resources departments, and internal management system issues in a timely manner. Please clarify the facts currently known, the entities responsible for the investigation, the scope of the investigation, and the corrective measures and future plans.
In light of the exchange’s timely disclosure standards, please do not simply postpone the disclosure of important facts by stating that they are under investigation. If you decide not to disclose them, please specify the decision-maker, the date of the decision, the facts used in the decision, and the criteria applied, and provide a specific reason for not disclosing them.
While repeatedly asking for explanations regarding employee absences and water-related problems, if the company itself is simply saying that it is “under investigation,” that means that what your company is strictly enforcing is not compliance with laws and regulations, but rather the selection of those who are required to provide explanations.
Please do not minimize the issue to a matter limited to the members of the association; instead, reveal the full details, including past incidents, and the management system that allowed this to happen. When disclosing and sharing information, please protect the names, contact information, and any unnecessary medical information of the victims and the information providers.
3. Please provide a basis for explaining the system for protecting the person involved and the responsible person appointed by the person concerned.
In this case, the issue lies in the long-term sexual harassment of Director Ito Miwa through prolonged staring, and the intimidating pursuit by Human Resources and General Affairs Department Head Iijima Yuko.
As far as the union is aware, in this case the person appointed to the position is Mr. Ito, who has been involved through the board of directors, and Ms. Sato Aiqa, the female department head directly reporting to Mr. Iijima, has been designated as the new person in charge.
The union has been calling for an independent investigation from those responsible for causing the damage and for measures that take into account the individual’s medical condition. Given this demand, how is the decision to appoint someone from the person who made the complaint to a subordinate of another person who has made the complaint made?
You might be thinking that if the name of the person sending the direct email changes, the system for instructions, approval, and reporting will remain the same, ensuring independence. However, changing the nameplate and rectifying the response system are separate issues.
Regarding the person who has reported being subjected to persistent sexual scrutiny of their sexual body parts by Ms. Ito, please explain the conditions for a staff member who can respond with confidence, and the reason why Ms. Iijima, a female employee directly under Mr. Ishida, who was involved in the selection, was unilaterally designated without confirming the person’s wishes, including their gender.
Was this selection of this person made as a retaliation by Ito? Does it intend to evoke memories of the victim's experiences and worsen their condition? If not, please explain how the victim's injuries and condition were considered and how this system was judged to lead to the victim's peace of mind and recovery.
The problem here is not only the gender of the person in charge, but also the continued response from the command and control system involving the person who reported the sexual assault, without verifying the person’s own will to seek redress.
If Mr. Ito is merely removed from the official line and instructs another employee to handle the matter on his behalf, continuing to exert previous pressure, then the union considers this to be a secondary harm, resulting from the gaze of the genitals, that continues indirectly through the organization’s authority.
Please clarify the names of those who proposed, instructed, or approved this appointment, the details of the deliberations at the Board of Directors, and the person who instructed, approved, or reported to Mr. Sato based on the records. Please also answer where Mr. Ito and Mr. Iijima can be involved in responding to the person concerned, verifying the facts, and obtaining and sharing medical information.
Ensure that harassment investigations, decisions regarding the protection of the person concerned, and responses to the person concerned are not subject to the discretion of the person who filed the complaint, without stopping the necessary administrative procedures.
Even if the person who committed the act unilaterally indicates the system chosen by the perpetrator without confirming the victim's intention and says, "Please focus on your convalescence with peace of mind," reassurance will not be achieved. Please do not let the party who has put the person under pressure decide whether or not they can feel secure.
4. Do not make the person’s shared consent and contact information irrelevant every time a change of contact person occurs.
This time too, only the individual member in question received the email; no simultaneous transmission to the association was made.
The person himself has designated the simultaneous transmission to himself and the union as his own will, and has explicitly agreed to share the necessary information regarding this matter. It has already been explained that this is not just an instruction from the union alone.
Nevertheless, whenever the person in charge changes, they have to explain the same designation again, transfer it to the contact information the company has deleted, and if that is necessary, they must follow up the details; this is not a transfer, but rather a situation where the person in recovery is being made to follow up on the shortcomings of the transfer.
Although the instructions specify how to reduce the burden on the person, ignoring those instructions creates new burdens. The final greeting, "so that you can focus on your convalescence," contradicts the actual handling of the work.
Please clarify whether this was a decision made by Mr. Sato himself or an instruction from a supervisor or officer. If there was an instruction, please provide the name of the person who gave the instruction, the date of the instruction, and the reason. If the person’s shared consent was not transferred, please identify the person responsible for the transfer.
If there are specific questions about the shared range specified by the person themselves, it would be sufficient to provide those details. It is not necessary to refer to the person's expressed wishes already provided; you do not need to ask for the same explanation every time.
In the future, please send the same text and attached materials to both the person and our association within the scope specified by the person via email.
5. Please respond as a management and supervisory body, rather than as an administrative office for the person in charge.
I have confirmed that the email includes instructions on assigning a responsible person, taking leave, and claiming workers’ compensation benefits. However, this did not answer the questions regarding the responsibility of the involved parties, an independent investigation, the concealment of industrial accidents, internal management systems, or other issues that have been requested in previous appeals and inquiries.
The union is not simply making a formal statement that no response has been received. Instead, it is pointing out a substantive issue: the fact that although a response has arrived, it has not addressed the core question posed.
When employees are repeatedly asked who did what when, and then asked the same question about the company's own response, they revert to introducing the person in charge and general procedural instructions. In this repetition, they are not fulfilling their accountability responsibilities.
In the Board of Directors, Audit & Supervisory Committee, and outside directors who are not related parties, please compare the submitted documents with the company’s responses item by item to determine what was answered and what was not. Please also clearly identify the reasons for any omissions in responses, the progress of confirmation and approval, and the person responsible for rectifying the situation.
Please keep any materials related to concealing work-related accidents, meeting minutes, emails and chat messages regarding the selection of responsible parties, records of instructions, approvals, reports, and contact with the person concerned in an unedited form. Do not allow the subject of the investigation to decide the scope and conclusions of the investigation themselves; if necessary, engage external experts and conduct an independent verification.
The response deadline requested in the written submission will remain in effect. For matters beyond the deadline, please respond promptly; for matters not yet reached the deadline, please respond within the original deadline. For matters requiring time to be confirmed, please respond to the part that has been confirmed first, and for the remaining items, please specify the lead investigator, the reason for the unanswered item, and the estimated date of response.
We do not agree with changing the person in charge of this matter or deleting previous unanswered questions or recalculating the deadline for responses based on this change.
What the union is asking for is not even a longer explanation or a polite closing greeting. It is about accurately understanding the questions asked, presenting the facts and evidence that confirm them, and taking the necessary corrective action.
Rather than making up for the company’s lack of understanding or shortcomings in succession for employees who require rest, management and executives should take responsibility for the documents they received themselves and the answers they issued themselves.
In conclusion, we request specific answers and corrective measures regarding management and supervisory bodies, as well as timely disclosure.