Shigetoshi Saito and Teruaki Watanabe boast of being listed companies that cannot answer the question "What did you research?"
"At this time, no circumstances have been confirmed that would qualify as occupational illness." On October 15, an email was sent from Last Mile to the employee again, removing the union from the destination.
So, what did you look into to reach that answer? Who did you interview and what documents did you read? Who made the decision? That is all what our union is asking for here. It’s not some arcane legal theory or sophisticated accounting judgment; it’s a very simple question: please explain specifically about the checks that the company supposedly made itself.
This time, the company explained that it did not intend to deny the workers’ compensation claim, but that it would respond to the formal application documents as soon as it received them. However, regarding the grounds stating that the situation cannot be confirmed as occupational illness, neither the investigating party nor the decision-maker has provided any evidence or records to support their claim.
They give a response. But they don’t provide the basis for their decision. The conclusion is polite. However, it doesn’t get to the core of the question. It makes one think of politicians who are asked about a scandal, repeating their prepared responses to waste time during the questioning session. Of course, there is no time to wait for the employee to recover and resume their normal life.
"Unable to verify" and "Not investigated" are different Japanese words.
The person’s claim form lists the actions of the officer or human resources representative who claims to be the cause of the illness. Our union’s petition also lists the progress of interviews, disciplinary action, recommendations for termination, and sexual acts, including the dates and times of the events. What is being delivered to the company is not just a paper with the disease’s name written on it.
If you have investigated this, you only need to answer the details of the investigation. If you have not yet investigated it, you can simply answer that it is an uninvestigated matter. Do not treat the lack of information caused by not investigating as material to deny the relationship between the business and the investigation.
The word “at present” is also very useful. However, without showing what has been done by that time, the explanation is not complete. If time passes without investigation, we may end up writing “not confirmed at present” next week or next month. This is not a cautious investigation; it is merely maintaining the status quo of not confirming anything.
The company can check its own interview records and approval documents even while waiting for the official application documents to arrive. If additional confirmation is needed from the applicant, they can ask questions via email as desired in the already submitted document. Waiting for the documents to arrive and not checking what has happened at the company is not the same thing.
The employee's explanation seems to be readable, but the union's address is not.
The employee has included the cooperation in filing an occupational injury claim and the parallel processing of medical benefits in separate sections of the invoice. He has also explicitly stated that the simultaneous transmission to the union and the necessary information sharing are his own decision. Still, the only emails he receives from the company are those directed specifically to him.
Even after explaining it several times, the short instruction “Send to both” still does not get executed. Although it takes this much effort to confirm the contents, the practice of removing the union from the sender remains consistent. Is it because the company is definitely sharing the information not the person’s wish?
It is not a matter of the person being able to transfer the information later. The problem lies in the fact that the company is forcing the person in treatment to make up for the insufficient handover by repeating the same request. Not reading the information, not answering the core issues, and sending it only to the person in question. Even if the repeated requests are explained as having other administrative reasons each time, the burden on the recipient only increases.
Through the many information disclosures, the union is calling for the full disclosure and rectification of the intentional and malicious issue of cover-up of occupational accidents. Once again, despite specific declarations regarding their relationship with the business, they have continued to avoid disclosing what they have investigated, and have not even provided the information shared by the person designated by them. It seems that they are more interested in excluding inconvenient facts from the subject of discussion rather than revealing the damage. Management will be asked to answer these questions in the context of the investigation records and the process of making the decision.
Mr. Saito Goshi and Mr. Watanabe Makoto. What is the “secret” that allowed them to pass the listing review with this level of explanation ability?
Having come this far, one more very basic question arises: how did a company that cannot even provide a concrete basis for the simple question of “who investigated what?” pass the listing review?
Seiji Saito, who has claimed to be a “listed contractor”; and Watanabe Makoto, who has invited Saito to the last mile and also claims to be a “listed contractor”; to these two who have spoken about their expertise in listed companies, I would like to ask for their “secret” to be revealed.
During the listing review, who read the questions, who verified internal facts, who gathered evidence, and who approved the answers. If that system was functioning at the time, why can’t the same thing be done with the employee’s questions today? Conversely, if only a similar level of verification was being done at the time, what was the basis on which the company’s management structure was explained?
Even if the questions in the listing review are answered, the answer to one question from a current employee is not available. Was the job of “listing contractor” not meant to include keeping the company a place where questions can be read and factual explanations given even after the listing? If only those who can explain are left, this is a very strange achievement.
We have previously discussed Saito-san’s involvement in the practical aspects of listing and Watanabe-san’s recruitment. In addition to listing your titles and connections, please explain in writing what specific tasks you performed and what management systems you established.
Listing review criteria published by the Tokyo Stock ExchangeFurthermore, the soundness of corporate management, the effectiveness of corporate governance and internal management systems, and appropriate information disclosure are all emphasized. That is one thing; having a solid organizational chart and being able to conduct fact-finding and explanation within that organization are two different things. Even if you establish names like the board of directors and the audit committee, if no one provides a basis for judgment, all that remains is a description of the sign.
The union is already requesting specific investigations and responses regarding audit independence, listing review, information management, and disclosure control. This is not a sudden move to bring up the issue of listing. The current situation regarding how to handle employee complaints is directly linked to the verification of the management system that the company has been seeking.
Before saying "unconfirmed," ask the public what you have confirmed.
Below, we will disclose, with consideration for the protection of personal information, the inquiry and corrective requests from the Association to the Board of Directors and the Audit & Supervisory Committee. These requests aim to clarify the actual circumstances of the investigation conducted by the company, the individuals who made the decisions and those who approved them, the persons responsible for the response, and the explanation as a management and supervisory body.
We ask Mr. Saito and Mr. Watanabe to specifically answer on the consistency with the initial listing structure mentioned in this article. If they have the ability to handle the listing process, we would like them to also take on the task of answering “What did you research?”
Instead of politicians giving evasive answers to inconvenient questions, please explain the work that you have done. What employees need is not the “secret” that the company uses to avoid answering their questions. The concrete answer is what the company has done to protect health and life.
Regarding the grounds for the decision that "the circumstances that qualify as occupational illness have not been confirmed," and the change in the person responsible for the response
Dear colleagues
We are the Last One Mile Labor Union.
Regarding the workplace health damage and the investigation system requested by the union in a petition dated October 5, we will make the following inquiries and requests for rectification from our own perspective.
In its response dated October 15, the company explained that “at this time, no circumstances have been identified that would qualify as occupational illness.”
So I would like to ask you about that.
What was investigated, by whom, when, and based on which documents and hearing results did they reach their conclusions?
What the union is seeking is not a repetition of the same sentence that says “not confirmed.” It is the actual facts of the investigation and the basis for the decision that led to the company issuing that statement as its opinion. Please respond specifically in the capacity of the board of directors and the audit and supervisory committee.
1. Do not confuse the recognition of workers’ compensation insurance with the surveys and judgments conducted by the company itself.
The decision on whether to pay workers’ compensation for an occupational injury is made by the Labor Standards Inspectorate. However, the responsibility of determining what happened at the workplace and how to deal with harassment, as well as protecting health and handling leave within the company, lies with the company itself.
The union is not asking your company to impose administrative measures in place of the labor inspector. Since you have treated it as a personal illness leave and explained that “the circumstances that are deemed to be occupational illness have not been confirmed,” we are asking you to explain the basis of the company’s decision.
The explanation that “we will consider necessary measures if an occupational injury is recognized in the future” is an explanation about future actions. It does not answer the question of what we are currently investigating, what we are currently understanding, or what we are using as a basis for our current handling.
While the basis for the part that the company itself decided is being questioned, please do not replace it with talk about future administrative decisions.
2. If you haven't researched it, it goes without saying that it is "unconfirmed."
Prior to completing the formal occupational injury claim form, the union member has already provided a detailed explanation of the workplace actions that they claim caused the illness in their own name. The union is also requesting an independent investigation by providing in the petition details of the parties involved, the date, repeated interviews, disciplinary action, recommendations for termination, and the sexual conduct.
The company is not just receiving reports of illnesses of unknown causes. The investigation has already identified who and what actions have harmed their health.
Nevertheless, no additional specific confirmation of the causal relationship has been made to the members of the union, nor has it been indicated who the company asked about what, or which records they reviewed.
What did you check regarding Mr. Ito’s sexual behavior? Did you check the repeated inquiries by Mr. Iijima and the related parties? Did you check the interview records and explanations from the related parties? Did you check the internal instructions, approvals, and decisions regarding the employee search, disciplinary measures, reward and punishment committee, and retirement recommendations and transfers?
Since we have not conducted such verification, it is natural that it is “not verified.” That is merely an explanation for not investigating the relationship with the business, not an investigation of the relationship itself.
Without conducting the investigation, it is natural that you will not be able to obtain any results. Do not explain this situation as if the results of the investigation have shown that you were unable to find any circumstances that would support the business-related causes.
Whether it was "not confirmed" or "not working to confirm it." If you are communicating the company's view without distinguishing between these two, there is a problem with the process of determining whether or not it is true.
The explanation that after receiving the formal application documents, we will proceed with the business owner certification and the fact that we are investigating the complaints already received as a company is a different matter. Until the application form is completed, we cannot verify the details with our own officers or employees, nor can we review our own interview records or approval documents.
Do not treat waiting for the arrival of documents and conducting the investigation as the same task.
Please do not use this as a reason for not being able to confirm the situation that the person is avoiding face-to-face contact and phone calls and is requesting communication by email. After reading the already submitted document, reviewing internal company records, and if there are any additional questions needed, we can address them specifically via email, taking into consideration the person’s health.
3. Please provide answers to the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee regarding the details of the investigation and the findings.
Regarding the following matters, the Board of Directors, from its position of overseeing the execution of business operations, and the Audit & Supervisory Committee, from its position of conducting audits, please clarify the details of their understanding and the corresponding measures.
- The creator, the person who made the decision, the person who confirmed and approved, and the date of each decision.
- The scope of the written confirmation made by the individual prior to the decision, the appeal letter, the diagnosis certificate, the attendance record, the interview record, the disciplinary committee materials, the internal communications, and the decision materials, and the scope of the confirmation and the content of the confirmation.
- The officer or employee, etc., who verified the matter, the date of verification, the method of verification, the questions asked, and the explanation obtained. If no one has verified the matter, the reason for that.
- Regarding each of the actions described in the petition, what matters have been ascertained as facts, what matters are in dispute, what matters have not yet been investigated, and how have these been evaluated?
- Is there any concrete evidence to deny the relationship between the business and the data, or is it just a lack of information necessary for the decision? If so, what is lacking and who is doing what to obtain that information?
- Whether reports and proposals to the Board of Directors and Audit & Supervisory Committee have been made, the date and time of such meetings, the contents of deliberations, and the policy for responding. If reports or deliberations have not yet been made, the reason and future plans.
If you have already conducted the survey, please provide your answers based on the survey record. If you have not conducted the survey, please clearly state that it is “not yet conducted.”
Even if we add the word “currently,” it doesn’t need to be explained what has been done by that time. If we leave the investigation without conducting it, time will pass and we can still say “not confirmed at this time.” In that case, it’s not an explanation of the status of confirmation but rather a fixation of the state of not confirming it.
If the investigation is not complete, please clearly state the fact and the reservation of judgment, and do not use it as a basis to claim that the investigation is not being conducted outside of the scope of work.
4. Please replace the person responsible with someone who can provide the necessary confirmation and explanation.
Your company has Ms. Sato Akagi as the person in charge, but what was presented today is the application clause for personal illness leave and the answer that it is “unconfirmed,” without any investigation.
If the responsible person cannot explain the basis for that decision, the materials they reviewed, the people they interviewed, and the individuals who approved it, then a responsible person who can explain must be placed separately.
Please replace the person responsible for handling matters with someone who understands the necessary procedures for this matter, accurately reads the submitted documents, verifies the necessary facts, and can responsibly explain the results.
If that is not possible, Representative Director and CEO Watanabe Makoto will take on the responsibility of responding on behalf of the company and will provide an explanation himself.
If Mr. Sato made his own judgment, it is necessary to clarify the basis for that judgment. If the superior or officer is relaying the decision, the person who made the decision should explain it. In a system where the decision-maker remains out of sight and only the person in charge at the point of contact repeats conclusions without explanation, that is not responsible behavior.
What Watanabe is asking for is an explanation of the company’s decision-making and responses. Since his involvement itself is included in the scope of reporting, it is not intended to entrust him with the conclusion of an independent investigation. The investigation should be conducted independently by the Audit & Supervisory Committee and other non-related external directors.
Furthermore, this does not mean that Watanabe and other related parties will directly contact the member or ask to hear about the situation in person or by phone. Please clearly distinguish between the response to the union and the contact method to protect the member's health.
5. Please answer about the investigation conducted by the company, rather than general procedural guidance.
I have confirmed that your company explained that it does not intend to deny the workers’ compensation claim, but that they will respond to the necessary business owner certification, etc., as soon as they receive the formal application documents. Please proceed accordingly with that response.
However, that explanation does not resolve the question of “how has it been confirmed that the circumstances that justify occupational illness are not known based on any investigation?”
What the union is asking for this time is not the explanation of the application that the company will receive in the future, but the basis for the decision that the company has already made.
As a company that has repeatedly verified the facts regarding the personal absence of the person and the water bill, if the actions of executives and human resources personnel are cited as the cause of the illness, it is necessary to explain whether this is a problem with the ability to verify or whether they are choosing the subjects to verify, as a management and supervisory body.
Please preserve the survey records, inquiries and responses to relevant parties, internal instructions and approval records, and the process of creating and confirming this company's response.
Within three business days after receipt of this request, please request a response regarding whether an investigation has been conducted, the contents of the investigation conducted, the person responsible for the determination and the person responsible for responding, and any changes in the responsibilities regarding the response. Please indicate the subject matter requiring additional investigation, the person responsible, and the expected date of response. The deadline for responding regarding previously submitted petitions, etc. will not be extended by this request.
Is this an opinion based on examining employee reports, or is it merely a procedural handling before investigation? Please do not end with the vague statement that it has not been confirmed.
In this regard, as the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee, we request that the actual circumstances of the investigation, the basis for the judgment, and the responsibility be made clear.