Regarding the contact points for Last One Mile Inc. (Directors Miwa Ito and Kohei Ichikawa) previously notified by our union, we first wish to inform all union members that the internal email dated June 11, 2026, titled "Regarding the Contact Point for External Sites and Similar Using Our Company Name" (hereinafter referred to as the "June 11 Notice"), has unilaterally designated the following new mailing list address as a contact point.
- Newly designated contact:lomlomlom@lomgrp.co.jp
However, regarding the contents of this notice, many union members have raised numerous questions and expressed strong distrust. Far from resolving the issues under the Trade Union Act and corporate governance pointed out by our union last time, the contents actually exacerbate them. Below, we will point out the problems of the June 11 notice from the perspectives of legal structure and governance, while also clarifying our union's position once again.
Part 1: Reconfirmation of the High Public Interest Objectives of the Last One Mile Labor Union
As we have repeatedly stated, the purpose of our union is not hostility or conflict with the company itself, but rather to ensure that our employer, Last One Mile Inc. (TSE Growth: 9252), achieves sound corporate governance and labor-management relations as a publicly traded company with social responsibilities and as a business entity that should pursue sustainable development.
Our cooperative seeks to establish transparent and effective corporate governance that serves the long-term interests of all stakeholders, including shareholders, business partners, customers, and the employees themselves, and this document is likewise issued in alignment with this highly public-spirited purpose of our cooperative.
We would like to explicitly reiterate here that this is not a demand-oriented activity by a mere labor-management dispute organization, but rather a legitimate point raised from a standpoint aiming for the realization of social justice as a constructive organization oriented toward the sustainable development of your company.
Section 2: Issues with the June 11 Notice
1 Sudden change of the contact point: Suspicions of information control and preparations for a "cover-up"
At the end of the notification regarding this matter dated May 11, 2026, the company listed "Director Ito (" as the contact point.Miwa_Ito@lomgrp.co.jp)","Director Ichikawa (kohei_ichikawa@lomgrp.co.jp), two individual directors were clearly specified.
However, in the notice dated June 11, without any rational explanation being provided, this "lomlomlom@lomgrp.co.jphas been unilaterally changed to a new mailing list address: ". The true nature and administrator of this address are not externally clear.
Among the union members, the following serious doubts regarding this change are spreading with strong distrust.
- Suspicion that this is a preparation to block direct access channels to individual directors and establish a system where only specific administrators can screen and select content, thereby "suppressing" inconvenient requests or whistleblowing information and "obscuring who suppressed it."
- Suspicion that, by enabling multiple persons to block and screen information, this is an intent to exercise information control that evades various laws and regulations such as the Companies Act while fraudulently preventing the very existence of the petition from reaching the check functions of the Board of Directors, Audit and Supervisory Committee members, outside directors, auditing firms, major shareholders, and others.
- Despite being an official internal notice addressed to all employees, both the sender and the recipient of this notice are "lomlomlom@lomgrp.co.jpand that it is distributed using a format where the "To" field is set to the mailing list's own address, and Bcc is used to make it unclear to each recipient "to whom it was sent" and "how far the distribution range extends." Given the nature of an internal notice—where official notifications should inherently have a transparent distribution range to the recipients—sending it via the Bcc format, which makes the destinations difficult for recipients to identify, is an extremely unusual practice. This strongly arouses suspicion of an intent for information control and arbitrary adjustment of the distribution range, making it impossible for individual employees to ascertain who was told what.
Given the company's widely known culture of suppressing past whistleblowing, thoroughly identifying whistleblowers ("witch hunts"), and subjecting suspected individuals to adverse actions through unilateral and unjust reassignments, our union cannot help but take extremely seriously the high probability that this change is positioned within that same context.
Furthermore, despite the fact that in the previous notice dated May 11, our union's anonymity was severely criticized as "anonymous" and "abusive," the company's contact window operation itself in the notice of June 11 has an extremely opaque structure—failing to clearly indicate the responsible sender externally while also concealing the distribution range from the recipients. This is a clear double standard and an intolerable contradiction from the perspective of corporate governance for a listed company.
2 The employer's continuous denial of the union's existence using the expression "an organization claiming to be a labor union"
The June 11 notice consistently refers to our union as a "labor union or an organization calling itself a labor union."
However, Article 2 of the Labor Union Act only stipulates that as a requirement for the establishment of a labor union, it must be an organization formed independently by workers with the primary purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions and enhancing their economic status, and the approval or recognition by the employer is not a requirement for the establishment of a labor union.
The expression "an organization calling itself a labor union" conditionally denies the legal existence of our union itself. In the context of the categorical statement in the notice dated May 11 that you are "an external organization completely unrelated to our company" and the sequence of events, this must be evaluated as the continuation of an unfair labor practice that still constitutes domination and interference under Article 7, Item 3 of the Labor Union Act.
3 Our union has not requested collective bargaining ─ Intentional misdirection regarding the scope of the exercise of rights
It is an important fact that needs to be clearly pointed out here that our union has never once requested collective bargaining (under Article 6 and subsequent articles of the Trade Union Act) from the company.
Of the three labor rights guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution of Japan, the rights currently being exercised by our union are
- the right to organize (the right to form labor unions), and
- Right to engage in collective action (the right to express intent as an organization, disseminate information, share information, etc.)
are the two rights, and the right to collective bargaining is not a right that our union has chosen to exercise at this time.
This is based on the judgment that, given the fact that complaints through official internal channels have been systematically "suppressed" in past whistleblowing cases, and that retaliatory treatment against those suspected of being whistleblowers has actually occurred, collective bargaining through internal channels cannot be effective at this time.
This is because it is already clear that even if we were to do so, it would be suppressed internally and end up going nowhere.
However, the notice dated June 11
If our company receives requests, proposals, or demands for collective bargaining regarding working conditions or other labor-management relations from a labor union or an organization claiming to be a labor union, we will respond in good faith in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.
Stating that, they have laid out a lengthy seven-item contact format based on the premise of requesting collective bargaining.
This is a method of intentionally steering the topic toward collective bargaining that our union has never requested, and this intent cannot be rationally explained by anything other than the "exposure of the union's substance" (= identification of union members and preparation for unfavorable treatment) described below.
4 Excessive and substantially illegal demands for "Request Conditions" - An attempt to de facto identify union members
The notice dated June 11 requires the following seven items as necessary information when conducting collective bargaining or similar activities.
To reiterate, our union has not requested collective bargaining, so this demand lacks the premise to be directed at our union, but we point this out just in case.
1. Organization Name
2 Name of Representative or Contact Person
3 Location and Contact Information
4. Relationship between the representative or contact person and our employees
5. Number of our employees who are members of your organization
6 Details of the Request or Petition
7. In the case of requesting collective bargaining, the agenda and preferred date and time
The particularly serious issues are as follows:
(1) "Name of the representative or contact person," "Relationship between the representative or contact person and our employee," and "Number of our employees who are members of your organization"
These disclosure requests completely ignore the background that our union was forced to choose anonymity in self-defense, given the definitive statements in the May 11 notice regarding "external organizations," "unidentified," and "unauthorized use," as well as past instances of retaliatory treatment.
Our union has repeatedly explained that it was forced to form anonymously precisely because the company has, from the beginning, exposed a culture of "witch hunts" and disadvantageous treatment that renders it unfit as an employer of a publicly traded company.
Nevertheless, the very act of broadcasting a message to the entire company compelling the disclosure of such information amounts to nothing less than domination and intervention that exerts pressure on the entire organization.
Regarding the specific "number of members belonging to your organization," disclosing this information is directly linked to the identification of union members and subsequent adverse treatment. Under the Trade Union Law and established judicial precedents and Labor Relations Commission orders, there is no legal basis to demand the uniform disclosure of the number of union members as a formal prerequisite for collective bargaining.
Disclosing this information to the company as a formal response prior to collective bargaining is tantamount to handing over the identities of our union members to a company that has already strongly hinted at a "witch hunt," and there is no realistic room for our union to accept this.
(2) Non-disclosure of sources in references to "Notifications related to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare"
The June 11 notice states, "In notifications related to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, matters that an employer may explicitly request the other party to submit when initiating collective bargaining include whether the person engaging in collective bargaining is a representative of the workers employed by the employer, and what the matters of collective bargaining are." However, the company is issuing this notice internally without providing any specific details of the said notification (such as the title, notification number, date, etc.), which can be perceived as coercive.
To our knowledge, as far as our union has been able to confirm, there are no notifications related to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare that stipulate that employers can demand the uniform disclosure of the number of union members, in the first place.
This mention hints at the existence of abstract "orders from authorities" to justify excessive requests for information directed at our union, and it must be said that this approach has the effect of intimidating union members and employees in general by establishing authority through unclear sources.
5 One-sided legal interpretation ignoring the distinction between enterprise labor unions and joint labor unions
The June 11 notice demands "the relationship between the representative or contact person and our employees" as a condition for making representations, which is a demand based on the tacit assumption that the labor union is an "enterprise labor union" composed solely of your company's employees.
However, under Japan's labor union legal system, in addition to enterprise labor unions, so-called "joint labor unions (unions)" organized to include workers not belonging to specific companies are also legally protected labor unions, and the mere fact that the representative or contact person of a joint labor union is not an employee of the company in question does not in any way negate its status as a labor union subject to the obligation to bargain collectively.
The very act of explicitly requiring “the relationship between the representative or contact person and our company’s employees” as a condition for negotiation constitutes a one-sided interpretation of the law that serves their own interests and lacks a fundamental understanding of the distinction between in-house labor unions and joint labor unions, as well as the principles governing the composition of labor unions.
This raises strong doubts about the basic knowledge of the Labor Union Act required as an employer of a listed company and the level of corporate governance awareness expected of a listed company executive.
Furthermore, the company’s management structure—which continues to grapple with numerous issues, including conduct that directly violates its past internal whistleblowing system—clearly demonstrates a lack of even the most basic understanding of various laws and regulations, as well as a lack of compliance awareness.Given this situation, it is impossible to say that the company possesses the level of legal literacy and compliance expected of a company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth Market, and we are compelled to raise serious questions about the very qualifications of Last One Mile Co., Ltd.’s management team as business leaders.
6. Restrictions on Speech on External Websites and Social Media—Pressure on Freedom of Expression and the Right to Collective Action
The June 11 notice states that,
We ask all employees not to spread unverified information from external websites or social media, nor to make posts or statements based on speculation.
as such, it is asking employees to refrain from making statements on external websites and social media.
However,
- When workers express their opinions or disseminate information as part of labor union activities outside the workplace (including on social media and external websites)or disseminating information as part of labor union activities regarding workplace conditions, harassment, the handling of internal reports, corporate governance issues, and other matters constitutes a legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan, and (at the same time) a legitimate exercise of the right to collective action guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution of Japan.
- The act of simultaneously broadcasting such self-restraint requests across the company's internal network objectively has the effect of chilling union members and general employees from communicating externally regarding union activities and labor-management relations. This constitutes pressure on freedom of expression and the right to collective action, and can be evaluated as a new additional instance of unfair labor practice corresponding to domination and interference under Article 7, Item 3 of the Labor Union Act.
7. The Credibility of the Pledge to “Refrain from Retaliation”—Contradictions with Past Practices
The June 11 notice states, “No adverse treatment shall be imposed on the grounds that an employee has sought consultation, filed a report, or engaged in legitimate labor union activities.”
However, the formation of our union is precisely grounded in the fact that retaliatory disadvantageous measures (such as unilateral transfers to departments completely unrelated to one's original duties) were actually carried out against employees suspected of having made whistleblowing and similar reports in the past. This fact is already widely known within the company.
Issuing a statement at this time that contradicts past operational practices will only further amplify the distrust of union members and general employees, and it can by no means resolve the realistic concerns regarding the hunting down of union members and retaliation.
To restore trust, what is needed is not a single-line declaration in this notice, but concrete actions: conducting a third-party investigation into past cases, publishing the results, and reinstating those who suffered adverse dispositions to their original status.
8. The Puzzling Nature of Specific Denials Regarding “Certain Individuals”
The end of the June 11 notice includes the following statement: "We have also confirmed that unverified information regarding a specific individual has been posted on external websites. This individual is neither a current nor former employee of our company and has no relationship with us whatsoever."
Our union does not take a stance of supporting wrongful acts such as the infringement of privacy regarding specific individuals, and we do not plan to directly involve ourselves in such matters as part of our union activities.
However, the fact that an official company-wide document, such as the June 11 notice, officially issued an extremely assertive and comprehensive denial stating that a specific individual is neither a current nor a former employee and has "no relationship whatsoever" with the company makes the intent, basis, and target outwardly unclear, and as official communication from a listed company, it is instead an expression that invites new speculation.
At the very least, as far as internal governance documents are concerned, it is difficult to say that such provisions meet an appropriate standard unless their purpose, necessity, and scope are clearly specified.
Section 3: The Union’s Position and Immediate Course of Action
Based on the above, our union hereby reaffirms our views and policies regarding the company's current response as follows:
- At this time, our union has no intention of requesting collective bargaining. The rights our union is currently exercising are the right to organize and the right to collective action—two of the three labor rights guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution of Japan—and we will continue our activities within this scope for the time being.
- Given the company’s current operations and corporate culture, we cannot accept the disclosure of information that would directly lead to the identification of union members and the “hunt for culprits”—such as the name of the union’s representative, its address, the number of members, and the relationship between members and employees—as this would jeopardize the safety of our members and the protection of our union’s organizational integrity.
- Only when the company remedies the unfair labor practices (domination and interference in the notifications dated May 11 and June 11), conducts a third-party investigation regarding the handling of past whistleblower reports and publishes the results, remedies the disadvantageous treatment of the whistleblower and the suspected parties, and establishes an objective environment where union members can safely disclose their identities, will our union consider the next steps, including whether or not to request collective bargaining.
- As part of our immediate activities, our union will continue to share information among members and with employees in general, raise issues with external stakeholders (including, to the extent necessary, umbrella organizations, labor commissions, relevant government agencies, shareholders, and the media),, and the compilation and publication of corporate governance issues—as a legitimate exercise of our right to collective action.
- Regarding the request in the June 11 notice to refrain from making statements on external websites and social media, we recognize this as an attempt to chill the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and the right to collective action, and believe that neither our union nor its members bear any legal obligation to comply with it.
Section 4: Re-affirmation of the high public interest objectives of the Last One Mile Labor Union
As we have repeatedly stated in our previous protest, our union is working with the primary goal of ensuring that Last One Mile Co., Ltd., as a company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth Market and as a business entity with social responsibilities, achieves sustainable development.
Sound corporate governance, an effective whistleblower system, a work environment free from fear of retaliation, and equal and sincere labor-management dialogue. These principles serve the long-term interests of shareholders, business partners, customers, employees, and society as a whole, and our union’s activities are aimed at realizing these objectives of high public interest.
We strongly urge Last One Mile Co., Ltd. to take the issues raised in this document seriously, to fundamentally review the implementation of the June 11 notice and the underlying assumptions on which it is based, and to promptly establish the basic understanding of the Labor Union Act and a commitment to sound corporate governance expected of the management of a listed company.
We ask all union members not to be unduly concerned by the June 11 notice and to continue carrying out their daily duties calmly and resolutely in accordance with the union’s policies.