[Last-mile Workers Union] "The decision is not yet final; yet the person responsible for explaining the reason for my sick leave is nowhere to be found."

Dear colleagues

We are the Last One Mile Labor Union.

Regarding the petition submitted by the union on October 5 and subsequent inquiries, based on the explanations provided by the company on October 15 and October 16, we hereby protest in our own unique way and request a response and rectification as follows:

The most important item to which we are asking for answers this time is the following.

Why is the employee’s illness not being treated as a work-related illness at this time and is they applying for personal injury leave? Please explain the reason in detail, along with the decision-maker, the date of the decision, the facts and materials that formed the basis for the decision, and the applicable criteria.

What the union is seeking is not a general policy for handling cases where workers are found to be eligible for compensation in the future. It is asking about the basis that existed at that time for the actions already taken by the company and the explanations already provided.

On October 15, the company stated that it would treat it as a private illness leave under Article 89, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the employment regulations, and replied, “At this time, we have not confirmed any circumstances that would qualify as occupational illness.”

However, on the 16th, the following day when questioned about the basis for this decision, the same official explained that he was not in a position to answer questions regarding the investigation or determination of the reasons for the leave of absence, nor the details thereof. He also stated that the current handling of leave of absence does not constitute a determination regarding the reasons for the leave of absence.

I have confirmed that this is not a final decision. However, this does not mean that the reason for choosing an injury leave or the grounds for explaining that “the circumstances for certification have not been confirmed” will be ignored.

Please answer the following in your capacity as a member of the Board of Directors and the Audit & Supervisory Committee.

1. Please indicate the specific reason why it is not currently being treated as a work-related illness and why you have applied for personal injury leave.

The union member has cited specific actions by officers and personnel managers as the cause of the illness. The union has also included in the petition the details of the relevant parties, the date, time, interview, disciplinary action, recommendation for termination of employment, and sexual conduct.

What is being delivered to the company is not just a diagnosis without any explanation about the cause. The contents of the document already indicate what happened at work and how that behavior was the cause of the onset and worsening of the symptoms.

Given that request, what reasons are there for your company currently treating this as personal illness leave?

Did they conclude that the person’s explanation of the incident did not exist? Or did they decide that the incident did not exist, but that the relationship with the illness could not be established? Or is it because the cause has not yet been investigated or evaluated, and they are only temporarily applying the category of personal injury leave?

Do not confuse this difference and use the explanations "not confirmed," "not yet determined," and "an administrative procedure is being guided by this," without carefully distinguishing them.

Specifically, please answer by distinguishing between the following matters.

• If you made an evaluation that denied the relationship between the work and the person, please confirm which facts were presented by the person and the union and how the facts were evaluated, and explain how you concluded that they were not considered work-related illness. Please provide the supporting documents and the individuals who made the assessment.
• If the information needed for the assessment is lacking, what is the missing information? To obtain that information, who did the company check with and what documents were examined? If you have not yet confirmed it, please indicate the reason and the planned investigation.
• If you applied for temporary partial disability leave without determining the cause, please explain why you chose that category. Please indicate the internal criteria that were applied, the decision-maker, the period of application, the timing of review, and the conditions.
• If the submitted medical certificate is to be used as the basis, please explain how each item in the medical certificate was linked to the reason for the personal injury leave. Please distinguish between the doctor’s determination that rest is necessary and the company’s assessment of the cause of the illness.
• Has there been any change in the company’s understanding or judgment between the explanation on October 15 and the explanation on October 16? If there has been a change, please indicate its content, reason, and the person who made the decision. If there has been no change, please indicate how the explanations on both days are consistent.

Indication of the article number of the employment regulations constitutes an explanation of the applicable provisions; however, it does not constitute an explanation of the factual determination and judgment process for why that provision was applied in this case.

If it is stated that it is not "determined to be outside of work," please explain why the category and duration of the personal illness leave were applied at this stage, while reserving judgment regarding the cause.

The union is not asking for the necessary rest to be cancelled; it is asking for the facts and the reasons for the decisions that are being withheld to be made clear regarding the treatment that is having a real impact on the person concerned.

While explaining that the cause is undetermined, they have specifically determined only the type of leave and the duration of the leave. Please explain the reasons for the decision made by the person who made it.

The fact that we are withholding final judgment does not mean that we can withhold the reasons for our decision at this point in time.

2. Do not confuse the recognition of workers’ compensation insurance with the company’s own investigation and explanation.

The decision on the payment or non-payment of workers’ compensation benefits is made by the Labor Standards Inspectorate. On the other hand, the responsibility of investigating and understanding what happened within the company lies with the company itself, as well as explaining the facts of the workplace, internal records, and the rationale for the company’s statements.

The union is not asking your company to grant administrative approval in the place of the labor inspector. We are asking you to explain your own actions and the personnel policies you have implemented, and to explain what the company has verified and what it has based its decision on.

The explanation that "we will consider necessary measures if workers are subsequently found to be eligible for compensation for occupational injury" is an explanation regarding future actions; it does not answer questions about the basis for the current judgment.

The failure to submit the official occupational injury insurance benefit application form and the fact that the company has already investigated complaints of harassment or other damages received are separate issues.

While waiting for the application form to arrive, you can review your company’s interview records, disciplinary committee documents, and internal instructions, approvals, and decision-making records to gather information from relevant officers and employees. If additional confirmation is required from the individual, please confirm the previously submitted documents and then specifically indicate the missing information via email.

If an investigation has not been conducted, then it is of course "unconfirmed." That is not a result of examining the relationship with the business, but an explanation for the lack of necessary confirmation.

Do not use the fact that it is an uninvestigated matter as a basis to deny its relationship to the business operations. Also, if you are conducting temporary internal processing based on the fact that it is an uninvestigated matter or due to a lack of information, please clearly state the status and the standard of processing, and indicate the person responsible for conducting the investigation and the scheduled timeframe.

Please handle assistance under Article 23 of the Enforcement Regulations for Workers’ Compensation Insurance and the necessary certification, as well as the company’s opinion submission under Article 23-2 of the same regulation, separately.

If the company's opinion differs from the employee's, you should explain the differences and the basis for them. Failing to name the person responsible for explaining the opinion is a separate issue from the difference in opinions.

3. Do not leave matters that have passed the original deadline of response to be handled solely by a description of the responsibilities of the person in charge.

In the October 5th request from the union member, they request a response within three business days of receipt, from the person responsible for the request, through email communication, and regarding immediate health considerations. Responses to each request and submission, as well as the delivery of materials, are requested within seven business days; similarly, responses regarding continued employment and the reemployment system are also requested in a separate written document within seven business days.

Even if some verification processes require time, we have already addressed the parts that can be handled first, and we have specified that the reasons and estimated dates for the remaining items will be indicated.

We have confirmed that some measures were taken, such as providing information on leave, sick pay, and assigning a contact person. However, this did not result in the completion of tasks such as providing the necessary documents, responding to requests for continued employment, or responding to the contact method specified by the person.

After the deadline for seeking immediate response was passed, and the deadline for responding to subsequent requests had also expired, the mere statement that they are “not in a position to respond” and the lack of any plan or person responsible for responding is in effect ignoring the request made by the person themselves.

For the prescribed business owner certificate that includes all the necessary information, the request is made within 5 business days after receiving it. Please do not use this as a reason to delay the receipt of the official certificate, which already requires the delivery of the requested materials, internal verification of the company, and the presentation of the expected response.

What the union is concerned with is not simply the delay in responding to emails. It is the actual situation: when the company that received a complaint about health damage learned what and when, and when and when it provided the necessary consideration, assistance in applying for assistance, and fact-finding and explanation.

Regarding this progress, we will present it to the labor standards supervisory agency and labor bureaus, etc. according to their respective responsibilities, and request confirmation regarding the company's response and the implementation of necessary measures required by law.

Changes in the person in charge or the limitation of their duties do not mean that the deadlines for claims already received by the company are recalculated.

4. Do you approve of a system that uses Mr. Sato as a cover for evasive tactics?

In matters related to command and control that the union is aware of, Chief Officer Sato Aika is the person responsible under the influence of the declarants, Directors Ito Miwa and Personnel and General Affairs Director Iijima Yuko.

As the person in charge serves as the point of contact, while providing explanations regarding the company’s status, if questioned about the basis for the explanation, they are told that they are not in a position to provide an answer, and no senior management official appears to be willing to do so. In this practice, Mr. Sato has become a cover for avoiding accountability for the company and management.

The union is not trying to give Mr. Sato the authority to make decisions without authority. Instead, it is calling attention to the company’s system where those with authority and responsibility do not explain things to those without authority.

It was explained that Mr. Sato is not in a position to answer this question. However, it is still not explained who within the company holds that position.

Only explanations from those who cannot answer are received, and the names of those who should answer are not provided. Whose judgment is it that maintains this situation?

The union has already obtained a large amount of information regarding the concealment of occupational accidents at your company through various means of information disclosure, and is seeking an investigation and rectification. In the face of these allegations, the union cannot overlook the fact that the investigation, the decision-makers, and the instructions and approval channels have not been made public, and the union is requesting that the representative in charge be instructed to stop providing explanations. This is simply a matter of a simple discrepancy at the point of contact.

Do the Board of Directors and the Audit & Supervisory Committee approve this system, or do they tolerate it while recognizing the problems?

Each director and each audit committee member should answer when they learned of the union’s petition, the person’s request, and the company’s subsequent response, and how they considered it and what they requested to be corrected.

Regarding the labor accident concealment that the union has pointed out, has the management not rectified the situation, and does the Audit and Supervisory Committee approve this approach and have decided to continue it as a company-wide policy?

If such a policy does not exist, please not only answer with "We have no such intention," but also indicate who determined which actions to be problematic, who instructed whom to make changes, and when they were implemented.

Was it the company’s instruction or the senior executive’s approval, or did you fail to rectify the issue while knowing about it? Please do not leave the details vague and end with just a description of the section chief’s responsibilities.

5. Please provide the reasons for your decision and the responsibilities of the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee.

The union’s petition has been submitted to the board of directors, the audit committee, external directors, the internal audit department, and the compliance department from the very beginning.

From the standpoint of overseeing the execution of business operations, the Board of Directors, and from the standpoint of auditing the execution of duties, the Audit & Supervisory Committee should confirm the following matters and clarify the details of their understanding and the corresponding measures.

• At present, the reason why the disease of the member in question is not treated as a work-related illness and the personal injury leave is applied. The decision-maker, the date of the decision, the facts and materials confirmed, the criteria applied, and the decision-making process.
• The person who prepared, instructed, and approved the explanation on October 15 that "the circumstances that justify occupational illness have not been confirmed" and the details of the investigation that had been conducted by that time.
• The current position of the company regarding the relationship between the business and the evaluation of whether to deny it or reserve judgment due to lack of information; whether the company has made a provisional decision without evaluating the cause; and whether it has handled each situation separately. If there are multiple circumstances, a description of each situation.
• Those who have decided to limit Sato's response scope to administrative procedures, the date of the decision, and the person to whom the matters that were not included in the scope are transferred.
• The date on which each director and each audit and other committee member became aware of the matter, whether they reported or discussed it, the content of the discussion, their assessment of the current system, and corrective measures.
• Verification of the lead agency for investigating the concealment of occupational accidents pointed out by the union, the scope of coverage, whether statutory reports are required, and the status of their implementation, as well as any necessary reports, corrections, and other corrective measures.
• For requests and applications submitted by the person after the deadline, information on unanswered or unprocessed items, the person responsible for the case, reasons for the delay, and specific plans for handling the matter.

Specifically, the above (1) and (3) are not only intended for future research plans, but also to explain the current status of the handling of the data. If the research is not yet complete, please answer why you chose the current classification in that state.

When compiling responses as a committee or company, please ensure that it is clear who is responsible for understanding the situation, who is making decisions, and who has requested corrective action. Do not include the actions or omissions of individual officers in the “under review by the company” sentence.

6. Replace the person responsible for responding with someone who is independent of the person subject to the declaration and conduct an investigation.

Please designate a responsible person who can explain the facts of the matter at work, the company’s decision, and the process thereof, and indicate your name, title, area of responsibility, and the date of your response.

If it is not possible under the current system, please replace the person responsible for responding to the union with someone who understands the necessary systems, reads the submitted documents, verifies within the company, and can responsibly explain the results.

If it is not possible to designate someone to compile the answers as the company, please have Mr. Watanabe explain the company’s decision-making and response system himself.

If Mr. Sato made the decision himself, he should provide the basis for it. If the decision was communicated by a superior or officer, the person who made the decision should explain it. The situation where the decision-maker remains out of sight and only the person in charge keeps repeating that they “cannot answer” cannot be called proper division of duties.

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of Watanabe to demand a company response from him, nor is it for him to entrust the investigation of matters for which his involvement is subject to disclosure to him. The investigation should be conducted under the oversight of the Audit & Supervisory Committee and the Independent External Director or other unrelated outside directors, in a system independent of the person subject to disclosure.

The necessary administrative procedures should be continued, and the procedures related to the person’s convalescence and benefits should not be delayed until the designated person or the investigation is completed.

Furthermore, this request does not authorize Watanabe or other related parties to contact the member in person or by phone. Please strictly adhere to the email contact specified by the individual and the simultaneous transmission to the association with consent.

7. Do not substitute the original judgment basis with the results of subsequent investigations.

If additional surveys are conducted in the future, please distinguish between the time when the decision was made regarding the handling of personal injury leave from work, the time of the response on October 15, the time of the response on October 16, and each subsequent time.

Please provide an answer so that we can understand what you knew at each point, what you had not confirmed, and what decisions you made. Please do not explain that you investigated and understood the facts after the fact as if you had been investigating and understanding them from the beginning.

Please retain the documents related to the approval of leave of absence procedures, emails and chats regarding the creation, modification, and approval of responses, instructions from officers and executives, reports to the board of directors and audit and supervisory committee, records of succession, investigation records, and documents regarding legal reporting, including the date and information of the author.

The deadline for the written submission and the response requested in the inquiry will be maintained. Matters that have passed the deadline will be answered promptly; matters that have not yet been answered will be indicated first, followed by a specific explanation of the person responsible, the reason for the unanswered matter, and the planned response date. This inquiry does not extend the previous deadline.

Finally, I repeat the most important question.

At present, on what grounds does your company not treat the illness of that employee as a work-related illness and does not apply the personal injury leave policy?

If you have any grounds to deny the relationship with the business, please provide them. If you have no grounds to deny it, please state that, and also explain why you chose the current course of action and who was responsible for making that decision.

Just explaining that "we will consider it further," "the decision is not yet finalized," or "the person in charge is not in a position to provide an answer" is not an answer to this question.

The union is not asking the company to make a conclusion that does not exist. It is asking the company to explain the facts and reasons at that time to those who made the decision and the handling that was done at that time.

Please clarify the reasons for the current handling, the basis for the decision, the responsibility for the matter, and the corrective measures taken by the Board of Directors and the Audit & Supervisory Committee.