List of Issues:

1. Please elaborate on the government policy to solve the problem of 1,047 former Japan National Railways (present Japan Railways/JR) workers whose employment was terminated upon the company's privatization into local corporations.
   
   
2. The Central Labor Relations Commission, the Tokyo Local Labor Relations Commission and others refuse to conduct hearings if a union petitioner wears a union armband at the hearing. Does the Japanese government have any plans to solve this problem? If yes, please elaborate on the content.

Background:

1. In April 1987, the Japanese government divided the state-run Japan National Railways into seven local companies (hereinafter the JRs) and privatized them. Not all of former workers of the Japan National Railways were accepted in the newly privatized JR companies. Those who were terminated petitioned the local labor relations commissions for an order of remedy against unfair labor practices. Their claim was that they were terminated for being members of a union that had objected to the division and privatization of the Japan National Railway.
   
   Local labor relations commissions recognized that the termination constituted an unfair labor practice, and ordered the JRs to correct their actions. The JRs filed a request for re-examination with the Central Labor Relations Commission of the Ministry of Labor arguing that the JRs are not responsible as the termination was made by their predecessor, the Japan National Railways. However, the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the decision of local labor relations commissions.
   
   Discontent with the Central Commission's conclusion, the JRs brought an administrative litigation suit to the Tokyo District Court seeking nullification of the labor commissions' orders. In May 1998, the Tokyo District Court held for the JRs' claims in general and handed down a decision to nullify orders of the labor relations commission. The case is now pending with the Tokyo High Court.
   
   The Japanese government is primarily responsible for this case because its own policy was the cause of this violation of human rights. It should not postpone the settlement of the problem any longer and it should take effective remedial measures immediately.
   
   
2. The Central Labor Relations Commission as well as the local Labor Relations Commission used to allow a union petitioner to wear a union armband at their hearings. It was a matter of course, because the armband is a symbol of solidarity among union members, and the Commission is the very machinery created to safeguard the right to organize as provided for under Article 28 of the Constitution.
   
   However for several years now, some Labor Relations Commissions have come to prohibit union members from wearing armbands. Furthermore, a hearing was cancelled because union members were wearing armbands. Consequently, petitions for Commission orders of remedy against unfair labor practices are hardly ever processed. There is even a petition which has been left unhandled for more than five years. This situation should be strongly addressed as practically the Labor Relations Commission has abandoned its role to provide remedies for violations of the right to organize.
   
   The Human Rights Committees of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Tokyo Bar Association have issued recommendations to the Labor Relations Commission to cease suspending hearings as to matters of workers' rights. However, the situation has not improved at all.