Reportedly seeing a store-type sex club where you work with Ishikawa Kanpei. Before answering that it is a "distortion of the facts," please explain your duties.
Regarding the union’s statements, the company would like to explain that they are based on facts. At the same time, there have been reports of witnesses who have criticized the actions of the director responsible for the explanation during working hours. We would like to ask Mr. Ichikawa Kokihei, who is in charge of the final mile delivery, to answer specific questions directed at him, just as he would when evaluating the statements of others.
The union received information from an employee who witnessed Ichikawa entering the last-mile branch shortly after he joined the company and using the in-store sex club at Ikebukuro Nishiguchi during working hours. Since then, complaints have been received that they have seen him entering the same type of store during working hours and entering a love hotel. The question we are asking here is about the duties performed during these hours, the management of the company, and the difference in treatment between employees.
In addition, there is information requesting an explanation regarding the responsibilities during the IPO preparation period, the union response handled together with Ms. Ito Miwa, and the influence Ms. Ito has on Mr. Ichikawa, whom she has been speaking to around the company. Is the person who speaks on behalf of the company not even assessing the evaluation of the report regarding themselves? The union does not accept a double standard where employees are asked to explain strictly and executives merely dismiss the issue with abstract denials.
The company view presented by Kichikawa Koki in the earnings briefing. So, what is different about which article?
At the 2026 August period full-year earnings briefing held on October 20, 2026, a question was asked about the "Minna's Union" article, and Ichikawa answered on behalf of the company. The video published shows the relevant part around 30:20.
Company-provided financial results briefing articleAlso, the following company opinion is posted regarding the union article.
Contains statements that are not based on fact or that distort the facts
The company also explained that they are consulting with a lawyer regarding the response. If so, please indicate specifically what articles and what information have been examined and how they have determined the correct facts. Once the subject and the basis are known, our association can also conduct a review and consider any necessary corrections or additions. Simply stating the article’s rating alone does not answer the individual facts the article seeks.
Shareholders and employees who watched the briefing have criticized Watanabe for having a halting response and ending the question session with a forced “That’s all.” Of course, there is time for a financial results briefing. However, for matters that cannot be explained within the time limit, there is a method to release specific answers later on. “That’s all” is a signal to end the statement, not a proof that the question has been resolved.
The company statement on October 20 is a response to the content published at that time. This time, regarding the declaration regarding Mr. Ichikawa’s conduct while working, we will separately request confirmation of the facts and a response. The fact that he once expressed an objection to a union article does not constitute a negative certificate that can be used for all subsequent declarations.
Please answer with the records of your work duties regarding reports of visits to shop-style orgy establishments while on duty.
In this information provided, it is reported that during a period shortly after Mr. Ichikawa joined the company, he was observed using a sex club called Pinasalo at the Ikebukuro Nishiguchi location during working hours. Since information has continued to come in about him entering and leaving similar establishments and visiting love hotels, the union requests confirmation regarding whether the company was aware of these activities.
What the company should investigate is what tasks were planned during the time of the sighting and what was actually done. By reviewing the work schedule, handling of time off, obtaining breaks and vacation time, communication regarding work, and the status of performing duties, you can clarify the scope of what the company could explain as work. Also, please confirm whether the company is responsible for the costs. Instead of deciding that the company’s costs were used, you should simply explain the difference if they were not used.
It is necessary to confirm both the actions witnessed by the eyewitnesses and how those times were handled under the company’s system. Although the mechanisms applied vary depending on whether the employee was employed or assumed duties as a director, the question of what work was supposed to be done for the company remains. Even if the title changes, the explanation of duties does not necessarily have to be provided.
Employees are instructed to detail their reasons for being away from work and for being absent from work, the progress of their work, and how they use their time. On the other hand, specific reporting to executives is completed only if the person denies it. If this is the management style, the problem is not only with the person’s absence but also with the company’s criteria for deciding who to investigate and who not to investigate.
Mr. Ichikawa will be asked to explain the handling of work during that time and travel outside of work. The company will request that the records be reviewed from an independent standpoint by the individual. This is not about tracking employees in order to pry into their private activities; it is about properly reconciling the company’s business records with the already submitted reports.
Isn't the term "free discretion of executives" actually a backhanded way of imposing strict control on employees? For questions about how the company uses its time, those in charge of the company should not have to answer. Such perks should not be attached to the name of the board of directors.
The difficulties of preparing for listing are for the employees; the explanation of the success is for the executives. Where has the responsibility for the postponement gone?
Regarding Ichikawa, complaints have also been received regarding preparations for the IPO. Employees have been told that the planned IPO has been postponed for two consecutive years due to a serious business mistake by Ichikawa, and that the site has been burdened with an extended preparation period. On the other hand, it is said that they have not received sufficient explanations regarding Ichikawa’s responsibilities or treatment, and at the post-IPO management policy announcement event, he proudly stated that he led the IPO himself.
It can also be confirmed from the public documents that Ichikawa was in charge of the central management department at the time.Corporate Governance Report dated October 20, 2021In that case, it is listed as the contact person as "Director, Finance and Accounting Manager." Currently,Official company officer introductionHe is listed as a director and executive officer and serves as a presenter at the financial results briefing meeting.
Regarding the reasons for the postponement of the listing, please examine the original plan, the review findings, the internal record of responses, and the scope of Ichikawa’s responsibilities. Which deficiencies led to the postponement, who identified the issues, and who directed the corrections. It is necessary to separate the individual judgment from the overall management responsibility of the company, including other officers.
At the heart of employee dissatisfaction is the fact that the long preparation period they have undertaken is not visible in the success stories of management. There are people who have taken on the task of redrafting work, compiling documentation, and balancing daily work with preparation. If they are able to incorporate that effort into the company’s achievements, but do not simply explain the reasons for the delay and the responsibilities, then the distribution of achievements and the distribution of burdens are too different.
The union is also questioning how Watanabe explained the position of Watabe regarding the listing review handled by Ichikawa and Saito. If he is to speak of achieving the listing as a feat, he must answer the same questions regarding the decisions and explanations he made to achieve it.
You stand on the podium to present the results. You do not sit down for a discussion about the reasons for the failure. Is it acceptable for management to allow such a way of choosing work? Human errors are left to the personnel evaluation, and the mistakes of executives are erased in the editing of success stories. Please verify that the company records are not double-bookkeeping like this.
Ms. Ito Miwa's "Ichikawa will do as I say." Is that a command from the company?
This time, it is also reported that Ms. Ito Miwa spoke about her relationship with Mr. Ichikawa. Multiple people have reported that they have directly heard Ms. Ito stating the following to those around her.
Ichikawa likes me as a woman, so she will do whatever I say.
What should be questioned from this statement is not the union’s speculation about Ichikawa’s inner thoughts, but the fact that Ito is speaking of such personal influence within the company. Instead of citing the company’s interests or operational needs as the reason to sway the decisions of the directors, he mentions the goodwill of the other party. Can the employees who are asked to testify expect fair personnel policies and independent investigations?
Mr. Ito has been asked by the union about the fact that he is being approached by Mr. Watanabe and about the fact that he is calling himself a "director in charge of the chairman's office." In addition to the explanation that he is close to the chairman, Mr. Ichikawa has also stated that if he is able to act according to his own will, then the board should verify whether the company's decision-making is based on a decision made in the course of his duties.
Article 355 of the Companies Act stipulates the following regarding directors:
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.
The party that faithfully performs its duties is the company, Last Mile Inc. It is neither Mr. Ito nor Mr. Watanabe. Please investigate whether the company considers it a decision to pass on someone else’s intentions regarding the declaration regarding myself or the declaration regarding my colleagues and the response to the labor union.
Companies that have employees working on the basis of guesswork about how directors think about each other are in trouble. The correlation diagram of human relationships becomes more important than the organizational chart, and you have to consider who is on the side of whom before you can consult. After creating such a workplace, if you respond to someone who has spoken up by saying, "You are distorting the facts," please first verify the original documents by separating them from the relationship between the executives.
The Atashino Kokan incident and the victim notification to Mr. Watanabe. What is needed is an investigation that excludes any interference between the officers.
Regarding Ito, our union has published several complaints about the persistent gaze of the male employee and the handling after rejection or criticism as the "atashino Kokan incident." The issue is whether the person who has filed a complaint can feel comfortable to consult and continue working in the same workplace.
The petition, published on October 5, also states that the member in question has been subjected to a series of actions and health problems, and has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder and erectile dysfunction. What the company needs is to take the pain seriously, not treat the person who has come forward as someone difficult to deal with, nor to process the reported actions and health issues in a thorough manner and provide the necessary support.
In past articles, we have also covered Watanabe regarding his personal use of company funds for personal relationships, the use of company facilities and employees’ working hours, and serious claims of sexual misconduct without consent. We have called on the company to investigate his interactions with the victim and its handling of the victim’s claims.
And this time, Mr. Ichikawa has received a declaration regarding his behavior during working hours. The common thread in the company’s concerns is whether the private intentions and actions of executives have not intruded into the company’s time, costs, personnel, and consultation processes. While examining each declaration individually, it is necessary to assess each other’s actions based on the same contact points and determine whether there is a structure that dismisses employee complaints.
Ichikawa appreciated Ito’s reporting, and Ito influenced Ichikawa’s reporting; Watanabe accepted the explanation from the two of them. If there is such a cycle, even if you add more officers, they will not be independent overseers. The problem is not the number of officers; it is a question of whether anyone’s explanation can be verified by cross-checking with the original documents.
As shown by the Ministry of Health, Labor and WelfareMeasures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplaceThis includes prompt and accurate fact-finding, consideration for victims, appropriate measures for perpetrators, and protecting the privacy of those who consult with the company. Protecting the company's reputation does not mean keeping the information from being disclosed to outside parties; it means doing the right thing after receiving a report.
It’s Ichikawa and Ito who are responsible for handling the union. Who is going to independently investigate them?
Mr. Ichikawa is not the first person to appear as a spokesperson for the company. On May 11, 2026, when the company alerted employees to the need to form a union through an anonymous email from outside sources, he was designated as the contact person along with Mr. Ito. The union protests the interference by the company, claiming that such disclosure would weaken the union’s unity and activity.
After that, the contact point was changed to a mailing list, but the union has repeatedly pointed out issues regarding the company’s information requests and response policies. The views expressed by Mr. Ichikawa at this briefing are also an extension of that. The person who evaluated the nature and outreach of the union is now receiving complaints about himself.
The company has the right to object. In its objection, please provide the relevant documentation, the facts you have verified, and the basis for your decision. The user’s comments to the union also need to be examined, including the position, content, method, and impact on worker unity. The same approach should not be taken to show negative assessments of the union and to search for members and suppress their consultation and activities.
Furthermore, the company’s request to an external lawyer for an investigation is also covered in our latest article. The company explains that the investigation by an external lawyer is separate from the decision regarding leave of absence and other administrative matters. Therefore, the explanation regarding the assignment of the investigation and the handling decisions already made by the company must be carried out separately.
Whether the declaration by Mr. Ichikawa will be included in the investigation or whether the decision will be made, including his relationship with Mr. Ito, and whether the result will be detrimental to the directors will be confirmed before the board of directors and the audit and supervisory committee. Just because there is a name of an external expert does not mean that we can know that scope of authority. The work of preparing the company’s counterarguments and the work of independently investigating the company’s directors are not the same in terms of purpose and items to be confirmed.
From another media outlet, "The Wolf Union"Article from the Prosecutors' UnionSo the question arises as to the route and use of the alleged indictment information obtained by Watanabe. While he is highly interested in information about others, there is no specific explanation regarding the reporting of his own officers. As a company, we need to change the way we use that information.
If there are people who are willing to look more closely at the union’s statements, please spare them from having to spend time on the fact-checking that the union requires. If the work of searching for the wording in the articles is not advanced, and the work of verifying the records of the board members is not advanced, then the company is not really trying to maintain accuracy; it is more likely to be perceived as coming to a conclusion that is convenient for the management.
Mr. Kichikawa Koki, Ms. Ito Mikawa, and Mr. Watanabe Makoto, public questions to the Board of Directors and the Audit Committee
The Last Mile Labor Union requests an answer to the following questions regarding this sighting report and employee concerns: Instead of simply replacing the person’s denial with the company’s conclusion, please explain the records reviewed, the decision-makers, and the response policy in a way that makes it clear.
- What is your response to the sighting reports that Mr. Ichikawa was using a retail-style sex club during his working hours, and the subsequent reports of his visits to similar establishments and hotels? Please explain the handling of duties, outings, breaks, and vacations during that time period based on the work records.
- Did the company have knowledge of these declarations before? Please indicate the time when it became aware of them, who investigated them, what was confirmed, the impact on operations and costs, and whether any necessary action was taken. Do not have the person investigate and evaluate their own actions.
- Regarding the employee’s explanation that the planned IPO was postponed for two consecutive years due to an operational error by Mr. Ichikawa, would you please verify the plan and review procedures at the time with the reason for the postponement, the person’s responsibility, the responsibility of other officers, and the additional burden placed on the site and corrective measures taken?
- Regarding the company’s view on the union articles presented at the financial results briefing on October 20, please specify the articles in question and the facts that establish that they are correct, and identify the materials that have been verified. Please also indicate who made the decision and who approved it.
- What is your response to the information that Ichikawa stated to his colleagues that he had the intention of showing goodwill towards you and of being able to act in accordance with your wishes? Does the company verify whether mentioning personal relationships affected union actions, personnel management, investigations, or decision-making?
- Regarding the atashino Kokan incident and the victim notification to Mr. Watanabe, what independent person is verifying what has been reported by the person who reported it? Please clarify who determines the measures based on the scope of investigation, reporting destination, and results, including the notification to Mr. Ichikawa.
- What part of external counsel do you handle in advising on the company's external counterarguments, conducting fact-finding, and verifying personnel decisions? Please explain the mechanism for reporting findings that differ from management's intentions to the Audit & Supervisory Committee.
- How can you prevent adverse treatment of employees, union members, and investigative collaborators who have reported witnessing or experiencing harm? Please provide concrete measures to proceed with fact-finding while prioritizing the search for those who have reported the incident and protecting the health and employment of the individuals involved.
Companies that treat officers and employees equally
Employees do not go to work to monitor the actions of executives. They go to work to fulfill their duties, receive evaluation and compensation based on their performance, and to work with peace of mind. However, if there are people who feel they must witness a problem and report it to the union, the company must also address the reasons why that information was not handled appropriately within the company.
Our union will not end this complaint with a story about having fun while away from work. Instead, we demand the following actions regarding the working environment and management issues: whether the employee performed their duties and whether they passed the burden onto others; how the company used its resources; and whether the person who filed the complaint will be protected.
- Please organize the declarations regarding your actions during this period of employment, the responsibilities of preparing for listing, and existing harassment complaints into specific verification items, and conduct an independent investigation from the officers involved. Please keep records linking the declaration content to the company’s decision.
- Please preserve records of work schedules, out-of-office/vacation requests, related business communications, expenses, and decisions regarding personnel and consultation support. Please conduct legitimate checks only to the extent necessary for managing work duties and the company, rather than delving into personal matters in general.
- Regardless of the severity of fact-finding procedures for executives and employees, if inappropriate employment duties or the use of company resources are identified, please take corrective action commensurate with your position and authority. Also, please confirm the burden and disadvantages caused to employees and proceed with necessary recovery measures.
- If there are matters that you would like to deny as the company’s viewpoint, please specify the subject and the basis for the denial and correct any errors. While taking care of the person seeking advice and managing information, please explain the investigation system, the status of confirmation, and future actions.
Those providing information should separate out what they have seen or heard directly, the date and circumstances, and how it affected their work. It is important to distinguish between direct experience and information heard from others, and to retain the records in their possession legally intact. There is no need to identify private companions or facility users beyond what is necessary to verify the facts.
It is also a matter that companies should protect, as a reason for not being subjected to any disadvantage, to provide consultation and cooperation in investigations regarding harassment.Information to prevent adverse treatment of consultees, etc.However, thoroughness is required. Instead of making the person who consulted with you a problem, we will investigate the actions they consulted about. We will ensure that this order is followed by the company.
If Mr. Ichikawa points out "distortions of facts," please explain your own facts as well.
Speaking of the achievements that led to the listing, explaining the financial results as the face of the company, and even stating the company’s views on union articles. The person who plays that role, Ichikawa, is also responsible for explaining the specific declarations to themselves. Do not arbitrarily divide the roles of representing the company and explaining one’s duties.
Complaints about Watanabe, the “atashino Kokan incident” involving Ito, and the actions of Ichikawa while on duty must be investigated independently. Each fact must be examined separately to determine whether mutual oversight is functioning. Just because management trusts each other’s explanations does not make employees trust the company.
The Last Mile Workers’ Union strives to ensure the company’s sound and sustainable survival and to protect the employment, livelihood, health, dignity, and well-being of workers. It demands strict control over employees’ time and no explanation for executives’ time. Any employee mistake is addressed through disciplinary action, and any executive failure is hidden behind success stories. In such a company, employee satisfaction and trust cannot be nurtured.
If there are any inaccuracies, please provide the relevant details and evidence. If there are any actions that need to be investigated, please review the records. The job of protecting a company’s reputation is not to quickly answer questions; it is to create a situation where employees can answer them. Even if you say “That’s all,” it doesn’t mean the employee has finished addressing everything they saw or wondered about.
Regarding the witness report that Mr. Ichikawa used the Pinsalaro while on duty, will you respond that it is "factually unfounded"?