{"id":1466,"date":"2026-10-12T16:54:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:54:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/?p=1466"},"modified":"2026-10-12T16:54:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:54:04","slug":"%e3%80%90%e3%83%a9%e3%82%b9%e3%83%88%e3%83%af%e3%83%b3%e3%83%9e%e3%82%a4%e3%83%ab%e5%8a%b4%e5%83%8d%e7%b5%84%e5%90%88%e3%80%91%e6%b8%a1%e8%be%ba%e8%aa%a0%e6%b0%8f%e3%81%ae%e5%90%8d%e8%aa%89%e6%af%80","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/archives\/1466","title":{"rendered":"[Last Mile Workers Union] Are you auditing Watanabe Makoto's claim of defamation and \"terror management\"?"},"content":{"rendered":"

No response to the question, and the executives said they had \"sued the individual.\"<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When asked to explain the company\u2019s problems, the only response is silence. However, when it comes to talking about a specific individual, the words \u201cI set the trap\u201d are followed by \u201cI sued,\u201d and the senior executive is told to convey this. Watanabe Makoto, the last mile employee, seems to have the same enthusiasm for speaking about his own external actions, but does he apply the same enthusiasm to explaining the relationship between those actions and the company\u2019s interests?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the \u201cSurvey and Request for Response regarding Audit Independence, Listing Review, Information Management, and Disclosure Control, etc.\u201d announced by the Last One Mile Labor Union on September 28, no response was received from the company to the union. This attitude of not responding to previous questions continues even for this formal request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, what the union knows is that Mr. Watanabe explained to senior management that he had filed a personal complaint. Why would he have to explain such a personal dispute to a company executive? If he had filed a defamation lawsuit, what evidence led to the decision that the particular expression constituted defamation? Does the audit committee audit the basis for that decision and the company\u2019s involvement?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this question is asking is not the promotion of the chairman\u2019s lawsuit, but the role that talking about that lawsuit plays in the company. If the actions involved in defending rights are being turned into material that makes active executives think, \u201cMaybe it could be me next,\u201d then there are problems with the current management and the work environment involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No response has been received regarding the request on September 28th. What is being asked is the company's own work.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What the union requested on September 28 was not abstract comments or a declaration of intent by the management. The union requested specific investigations and answers regarding the relationship between Saito Goshi and Udo Kazuharu regarding their duties and compensation, the acquisition of information regarding audits and listing reviews, and the sharing of information with Watanabe, as well as the company\u2019s internal control system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who requested the work, who received the compensation, and who obtained and used the information? What did they explain to their previous employers and audit bodies at the time? How did the company\u2019s submitted documents match the actual situation? This document shows what should be confirmed based on the company\u2019s own documents and inquiries to related parties.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last-mile Labor Union] Request for investigation and response regarding audit independence, listing review, information management, and disclosure control\u2026<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

The company has not responded to this request. The union has not received any response regarding the investigation team, the materials reviewed, the fact finding, or the policy regarding external inquiries and corrective measures. The union again requests that the company explain what it has investigated and what decision it has made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This company has asked employees to explain everything from one-day absences to water bills from their personal lives. When employees are asked specifically about their own listing review and information management, the company closes the discussion. Employees see this discrepancy. If accountability is lighter for those in higher positions, it is not compliance; it is a mechanism for measuring the position within the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While preparing to sue other individuals, the company is refusing to answer questions about its own dealings and decisions. How does the board of directors think about that order of things? Answering the company\u2019s questions is not a perk after winning a trial against someone. This is the work that the current management team should be doing as their current job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From \"being set up\" to \"taking the individual to court.\" Why do you have to bring it to the executives?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The union has previously highlighted that, as a declaration from a current executive, Watanabe had explained that he had \"orchestrated\" legal action against former officers and others. What the executives had communicated to them instead was not reassurance about their activities to protect the company's legitimate rights, but rather a fear that, after leaving the company, they themselves would be subjected to similar treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last One Mile Labor Union] Explain it to the market before claiming you \"engineered\" it.<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

This time, the explanation is that they are suing an individual. If it is necessary to report to the senior management as part of the company\u2019s operations, it should be sufficient to explain the purpose of the lawsuit, the relationship with the company, and the specific tasks they are requesting of the senior management. Why does this become a story about the individual\u2019s strengths and leads to the person being worried about their future?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to the necessary operational reports, those who have heard them know what to check and what should be done. On the other hand, if the fear that comes after finishing listening is that if you go against the chairman, you will be followed even after you retire, then that statement serves a different function than the explanation of the operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the union is concerned as a problem is this effect. By bringing this directly to the attention of management, even one individual will be deterred from speaking out, consulting, or taking action after leaving the company. It is asking whether individual disputes are not being used as a pretext for internal dissent within the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please confirm with Watanabe himself what he was talking to the executives about. At the same time, the company needs to examine how that explanation was actually received and what impact it had on the workplace. Expressing that it was not intended that way and addressing the already existing concerns are separate and necessary tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no need to turn the board meeting into a display of the chairman\u2019s personal conflicts. There should be things the company needs to discuss, such as business issues, improving operations, and supporting employees. Even if the time it takes to hear who the CEO has sued increases, if the company still doesn\u2019t get a single answer to its questions, I would like to see the way the meeting is conducted reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are suing for defamation, please indicate what evidence supports the claim.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If the person has been sued for defamation, the first thing to be identified is the expression that the person allegedly made. When, where, to whom, and what was said. If the expression is claimed to have damaged Watanabe\u2019s personal social reputation, please distinguish that part. If it also involves issues of company reputation or credibility, please separate that part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we would like the Audit and Supervisory Committee to confirm is not whether the Chairman is saying that he is defaming the company. The question is whether the company is considering the actual wording, the context, the supporting materials, the response to the other party\u2019s actions, and the damage. We need to accurately understand what the person is claiming, including whether the lawsuit concerns the articles of our association or the statements of another individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, if the issue involves public interests, the purpose and basis of the message are also important.Supreme Court Judgment of June 23, 1941<\/a>It sets out a framework for considering the truthfulness of facts communicated for public interest purposes exclusively, and the existence of reasonable grounds for believing the facts to be true, in matters of civil defamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, if we want to raise questions about the company\u2019s audit independence, listing review, or workplace environment, we must evaluate them by reading the specific details and the facts and materials that support them. If we base our assessment solely on what the CEO found unpleasant, and do not provide any evidence to show what is different from the facts, then the only conclusion we can reach internally is that the company\u2019s actions amounted to defamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did they check not only the documents supporting Watanabe's claims, but also any documents that contradicted them? Did they compile objective facts that the company could answer regarding the alleged statements? If the company is trying to protect its interests, gathering materials to file a lawsuit should be accompanied by a check to see if the facts being pointed out exist within the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reports of \"complaint\" do not constitute completion of these checks. Seeking a judgment from the court and determining the appropriateness of expenditures and the performance of duties as a company are separate procedures. Do not replace the fact of filing a complaint with a report that the audit has concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the union is seeking is not to have the board of directors make a judgment, but to audit the legal claims related to the company and the management\u2019s actions based on those claims. I would like everyone to refrain from using the explanation that the company is in dispute in a court of law as a reason not to confirm the information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If someone files a lawsuit for defamation of character against another person, Watanabe\u2019s own words are also subject to scrutiny.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Another matter that requires confirmation from the Audit and Supervisory Committee is the explanation given by Watanabe regarding the person he sued and former executives within and outside the company. While claiming that his reputation has been damaged, he has not disclosed the content that harms the reputation of the other party without verifying the basis and necessity for it. We need to examine this based on the same standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the letter published on October 12, the union also takes up the information that Mr. Watanabe is explaining to those around him that he is an accomplice in the embezzlement case, and demands that the company provide evidence of the basis and appropriateness of his statements. If the person himself is concerned about defamation of another person, he will naturally be asked about the basis of the content he is conveying as well.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last Mile Workers Union] Sexual harassment allegations against Director Ito and management led by Chairman Watanabe...<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

What was the explanation given to the executives about what to tell them and how the person who heard it understood that a fact had been confirmed? If the information used was from the indictment in a criminal case, please check that the actual contents of the document are consistent with Watanabe\u2019s assessment and outlook, and that the person who made the assessment has not added any additional information. It is also a matter of investigation whether the person who made the accusation about an individual did not repeatedly add explanations that made it appear as if the person was a criminal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The circumstances to be evaluated are specific to the person who was given the opportunity to speak, the scope of sharing, the business purpose, and the extent of fact-checking. Even if it is an internal explanation, the task remains of identifying the impact on the social evaluation of the other party and any information management issues. Where does the company divide the necessary legal sharing and the explanation intended to spread negative word of mouth?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there are people who check every word of the other person\u2019s message for Watanabe, please check Watanabe\u2019s message with the same accuracy. The double standard of treating the other person\u2019s words as defamation and one\u2019s own words as freedom for the manager does not apply. It is the company\u2019s responsibility to check whether the legal measures taken to protect one\u2019s reputation have not turned into internal propaganda that harms another person\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the term \u201cdefamation of honor\u201d is used strictly, that strictness should reach the chairman\u2019s seat as well. With a system that only examines the statements of others, it becomes a special counterpoint unit for the chairman rather than a company\u2019s compliance system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much of the company's money, personnel, and reputation is being used in individual lawsuits?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What we would like to explain to the company this time is who is the plaintiff and what lawsuit is being waged to protect the interests of whom. The fact that the defendant is an individual or the company itself is the plaintiff or Watanabe as an individual will change the basis for considering the burden of costs and the handling of the matter as a business. Without clarifying this, we must not allow work to be performed internally as \u201cthe company\u2019s response.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the company is involved in a claim regarding Watanabe\u2019s personal reputation, please indicate what benefits the company gained and what expenses and support were necessary. If the issue involves the company\u2019s own reputation or damage, the explanation should not end with just a claim against the individual; it should also include a formal decision by the company, an internal investigation, and a report to the audit committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cost of auditing is not just the payment to lawyers. The time employees spend gathering documents, the contact through the secretarial function, and requests to external vendors are also resources used by the company if they are actually being used. Just looking at the invoice number does not give a complete understanding of the company\u2019s expenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, please verify who requested the work, who explained the purpose, who approved the cost and personnel, and who received the results. You need to determine whether it was a job that supported the company\u2019s business or a job that dealt with conflicts between the management team and the individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Audit and Supervisory Committee reviews matters, it is important not only to hear the opinion of the representative commissioned by Mr. Watanabe, but also to ensure that the review covers both the company\u2019s interests and the impact on the workplace. Advice on pursuing individual claims and the decision whether the company should bear the costs and risks are not the same question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rights belong to individuals, work belongs to employees, expenses belong to the company, and explanations are the responsibility of the individual. Please check whether there is no convenient way to switch between these situations. Managing operations in a way that only puts the company in the background when discussing lawsuits and hides the individual behind costs and supervision only when asked to do so is not managing the company\u2019s assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Audit and Supervisory Committee has the task of examining the Chairman's actions and behavior.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

last mileOfficial Board Member Introduction<\/a>The list includes external directors who are Audit and Supervisory Committee members. Currently, the only parties seeking independent confirmation regarding this matter are the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 399-2, paragraph 3, item 1 of the Companies Act stipulates the duties of the Audit and Supervisory Committee as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Auditing the performance of the duties of directors (in the case of a company with a board of directors and an accounting committee, the directors and the accounting committee) and preparing audit reports<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

System information for the Japan Auditors Association<\/a>However, regarding companies with an Audit and Supervisory Committee, the authority to audit the performance of duties by directors and to conduct investigations under Article 399-3 of the Companies Act is provided. Through the Audit and Supervisory Committee, which is selected by the Audit and Supervisory Committee, there is a mechanism to request the necessary reports and examine the company\u2019s operations and assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, the decision by the company to get involved in a lawsuit alleging defamation was based on what facts and legal considerations. Was the explanation to executives necessary as part of the company\u2019s job, and was it limited to the appropriate scope? Was there management in place to prevent the company\u2019s resources being used for personal intimidation or retaliation? These are matters that can be verified based on the company\u2019s relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the answer is \u201cPlease ask the chairman because it\u2019s the chairman\u2019s case,\u201d then there is no point in having an independent audit body. Receiving an explanation from the person is the beginning of the investigation; however, it is necessary to verify that explanation with the documents and determine the company\u2019s appropriateness. Simply passing on questions to the people to be verified does not constitute an audit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The request on September 28 already indicates specific areas for audit, listing review, and confirmation regarding the receipt and use of information. In addition to this, please explain the current lawsuit and examine how the same individuals and information, company resources are related. Accepting the work of denying the opposing party\u2019s claims while not explaining the confirmation of the company\u2019s own doubts is acceptable to the Audit and Supervisory Committee?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

JPX's principles for handling scandals<\/a>We emphasize the need for sufficient scope of investigation, appropriate systems, and the self-purification effect of independent officers. Instead of pushing inconvenient questions to the outside of the company, we ask that matters that can be confirmed within the company be investigated. The Audit & Supervisory Committee is not placed there to applaud the chairman\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While waiting for the court's decision, the executives' anxiety remains within the company.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In an article on September 23, the union announced that senior executives who heard Mr. Watanabe\u2019s explanation expressed strong anxiety that they might face personal attacks after their retirement and that some of them had even reported developing mental illness. This is a specific request for improvement in the work environment from someone currently working, in addition to the opposing party in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last-mile Labor Union] After receiving requests for workplace improvement from executives, it formally submitted them to the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee...<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

Even if the company is fighting a defamation case in court, it is not necessary to wait for a verdict until the executives\u2019 health and workplace environment are addressed. The current company can investigate what was asked at each meeting, what the executives were worried about, and what impact that had on their subsequent work and consultation behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanation from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare regarding power harassment<\/a>It covers mental attacks such as threatening behavior, defamation, and insults. Companies must determine whether the remarks are not beyond the scope necessary for the work, by examining not only the purpose of the remarks but also their manner, frequency, workplace context, and the situation of the person receiving them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a situation exists where employees are hesitant to express their opinions to management, consult with unions, or even consider retiring in the future, that atrophy is a loss for the company itself. If those who are willing to speak up sooner remain silent and only superficial agreement is gathered at meetings, the management loses the information they need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do not use dissenting opinions from executives as proof of the correctness of management. It is the current company\u2019s job to verify whether there are any dissenting opinions. By spreading stories about individuals who have spoken out, even if no one else has spoken up, it is not possible to call that a result of leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than having to wait for a direct meeting with Mr. Watanabe to explain our concerns, we demand that the company establish an independent channel for consultation and provide the necessary health support and prevent any unfair treatment. If the company\u2019s reputation is worth protecting in court, we would like the dignity of the people who work there to be protected as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Open Letter to Makoto Watanabe, Board of Directors, and Audit and Supervisory Committee<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Last One Mile Labor Union requests that, in conjunction with the response to the September 28th demand, the following information be disclosed: the explanation from Mr. Watanabe himself, the facts confirmed by the Audit and Supervisory Committee, and a response that distinguishes the company\u2019s decision from the demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. When did the Board of Directors, the Audit & Supervisory Committee, and the relevant departments receive and share the survey and response request on September 28? Who decided the response policy, and why have they not responded to the union to date? Please indicate the status of the survey and the planned response.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Regarding the lawsuit in which Mr. Watanabe explained to the executives that he had \u201csued an individual,\u201d has the Audit & Supervisory Committee confirmed the facts regarding the plaintiff, the details of the claim, and the relationship with the company? Is the content conveyed by the person to the executives consistent with the actual claim?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. If the claim is based on defamation, what evidence have you examined regarding the expression, the sender, the time of transmission, the intended audience, the impact on social evaluation, and the damage caused? Are you also considering the public nature, the public interest purpose, the truthfulness, the credibility, and the reasonable grounds to believe the truth?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. What is the business purpose of explaining the personal complaint to senior management? This is an explanation for getting someone to do something; please answer why the subject, the content, frequency, and wording were necessary.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Has anyone reviewed the details that Mr. Watanabe himself has communicated internally and externally regarding former officers and other personnel from the perspective of defamation of character or information management? Who has verified the basis for explaining involvement in crime, the scope of sharing, the necessity, and the need for correction?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Do you use the company's costs, personnel, working hours, facilities, and secretarial functions for litigation and related information gathering and external communication? Please explain the relationship between the company's profits, the amount of expenses, the approval procedures, and the personal interests of Mr. Watanabe.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. What independent interviews and improvements have been made regarding the concerns about post-retirement attacks from executives and reporting on health issues? How do you prevent any adverse treatment based on consultation, union activities, or cooperation in investigations?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Has the Audit and Supervisory Committee conducted any reporting requests, material verification, consultation with external experts, or reporting to the Board regarding this matter? Please indicate the scope of the audit, the date of implementation, the matters verified, the conclusions, and the corrective measures requested.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. If there are any items that you are not responding to because they are under dispute, please specify which information you have determined would cause a hindrance. Please respond separately to the matters that you can explain at the moment, such as the investigation system, management of company resources, and improvement of the work environment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    After completing the no-response phase, please independently verify the grounds for the lawsuit and its impact on the workplace.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    What the company is asking for is not more detailed disclosure of the litigation strategy to senior management. The company\u2019s own questions on September 28 were answered, and the explanation regarding this lawsuit and the company\u2019s involvement is intended to lead to a formal audit and improvement. Our union requests the following actions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Regarding the request on September 28, please provide information on the status of verification for each item, the entity conducting the investigation, and the decision and future actions. Please also explain what matters have not yet been concluded and who is verifying them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Audit the grounds for claiming defamation, the use of company costs and personnel, the explanation to senior executives, and the dissemination of information about the opposing party as interrelated matters. Do not place the person responsible for verifying Watanabe\u2019s explanation under his direct control.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Correct the behavior that diminishes employees and executives by displaying lawsuits, and clearly define the scope and methods of necessary business communications. Provide support for those who have raised concerns about their work or health issues, and promote the prevention of adverse treatment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Please preserve relevant minutes, statements, documents, requests, approvals, costs, internal and external communications, and records of handling of requests on September 28. If the investigation finds that there was misrepresentation or improper spending or personnel handling, please make corrections, recover any losses, and prevent recurrence.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      We would like executives and employees to record as much as possible about the explanations they received regarding the lawsuit, the times and places they heard them, what instructions were given during those discussions, and what concerns or operational impacts arose. Please separate the words you heard directly from what you heard from others later. There is no need to adjust your memory to match the company\u2019s explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For those who have been asked by their company to perform litigation-related tasks, please organize the details of the work, the person in charge, the purpose described as part of the company\u2019s operations, the approvers, and the reporting parties. The work performed by the practice manager and the decision of the management who decided to assign the task must be separately recorded. It is important to confirm the instructions and approval so that it does not fall under the responsibility of only those who performed the work later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If it is difficult to discuss the matter internally, in addition to consulting the union,Consultation desk information from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare<\/a>You can check the comprehensive labor consultation corner of the Labor Bureau. Even if the employer is a company that talks about lawsuits, the employees do not need to consult, record the facts, or take any action to protect their own health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Protecting the company is not about the volume of voices that have spoken out, but rather governing by answering questions.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The request on September 28 remains unanswered, and the talk of suing individuals is passed on to senior management. This juxtaposition questions who the company will explain things to at the last mile. If the company closes its mouth when employees ask questions and opens its mouth when talking about intimidating employees, then that information dissemination is not building trust in the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If you are claiming defamation, please provide evidence of its existence. If the company is involved, please explain the company\u2019s interests and the cost burden. If you are speaking to senior management, please verify the necessity of the matter and its impact on the workplace. Before supporting Watanabe as a party to the lawsuit, the Audit and Supervisory Committee should audit the performance of his duties as a director.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The union\u2019s purpose is to ensure the healthy and sustainable survival of the last mile and to protect workers\u2019 employment, livelihood, health, dignity, and well-being. It is indispensable for this to happen in a company where those who dare to question management are not afraid of being persecuted after leaving the company. The credibility of a company is not protected by reducing the number of those who question it; it is protected by answering questions and fixing problems when they arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If \u201cinitiated\u201d is followed by \u201cfiled a lawsuit,\u201d then I would like to see the following: \u201cinvestigated,\u201d \u201caudited,\u201d and \u201cresponded.\u201d Only the Chairman\u2019s biography is updated, and the company\u2019s response section remains blank. It is not acceptable to accept this state of affairs as the completed governance system of a listed company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Last Mile Labor Union Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      \u8cea\u554f\u306b\u306f\u7121\u56de\u7b54\u3001\u5e79\u90e8\u306b\u306f\u300c\u500b\u4eba\u3092\u8a34\u3048\u305f\u300d\u3002 \u4f1a\u793e\u306e\u554f\u984c\u306b\u3064\u3044\u3066\u8aac\u660e\u3092\u6c42\u3081\u308b\u3068\u3001\u8fd4\u3063\u3066\u304f\u308b\u306e\u306f\u6c88\u9ed9\u3067\u3059\u3002\u3068\u3053\u308d\u304c […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"swell_btn_cv_data":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lastonemileunion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1466"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1467,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1466\/revisions\/1467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}