Secondment - Transfer

A type of personnel transfer within a company. It differs from reassignment (transfer) in that it is done outside the company, which is limited to a change of place of work or job duties within the same company. There are in-house transfers, where the employee retains his/her status as an employee of the company he/she is employed at (the company to which he/she is seconded) and is usually placed on leave to work at (the company to which he/she is seconded), and transfer transfers (also called transfers or reassignments), where the employee loses his/her status as an employee of the company to which he/she is seconded. In either case, a secondment agreement between the company to which he/she is seconded and the company to which he/she is seconded is required as a prerequisite. In the case of transfer secondments, the labor contract with the company to which he/she is seconded is terminated and a new labor contract is concluded with the company to which he/she is seconded. In contrast, in the case of in-house transfers, it is considered that there is a labor contract with both the company to which he/she is seconded and the company to which he/she is seconded, or at least there is a relationship similar to a labor contract with the company to which he/she is seconded. Therefore, the content of the responsibilities of each party is determined in the agreement on secondment. In the past, it was common for senior employees to be sent to affiliated companies, but gradually it came to be used to adjust employment for general employees as well.

A secondment involves providing labor to a company with a different legal personality, and involves significant changes to working conditions. Therefore, a secondment cannot be ordered unilaterally by a work order. In the case of a transfer secondment, the employee resigns from the current company and enters into a new labor contract with the company, so individual consent from the employee is required at the time of the secondment. In the case of an in-house secondment, precedent has also stated that the employee's consent or other basis is required (Tokyo District Court ruling of March 31, 1966). The question is whether this consent needs to be given individually at the time of the secondment, or whether consent to comply with future orders for secondment (called comprehensive consent) given at the time of entering into the labor contract (at the time of employment) is sufficient. In reality, if there is a provision regarding secondment in the work rules, it is considered that the employee was employed with consent to that provision, so the question is whether a secondment can be ordered on that basis. At the time of employment, the employee and the employer are in a different position, so it is difficult for them to refuse a secondment or not agree to the work rules. For this reason, there is a leading theory that individual consent is required at the time of secondment. On the other hand, many academic theories and legal precedents do not require that much. However, general and abstract provisions in the work rules are not enough, and unless there are direct and clear provisions, no obligation to transfer will arise (Supreme Court decision of October 19, 1973). Even if a provision can be said to give rise to an obligation to transfer, if the individual case in question lacks business necessity or rationality in personnel selection, the said transfer order will be invalid as an abuse of rights (Article 14 of the Labor Contract Law). Furthermore, even if there is a provision regarding secondment in a labor agreement, it merely specifies the treatment in the case of secondment, and therefore does not give rise to an obligation to transfer for individual workers.

In addition, secondments are also conducted in the public sector between ministries and agencies, local governments, private companies, etc. for the purpose of personnel exchanges, but the actual circumstances are diverse and the legal relationships are complicated. Although it is sometimes called dispatch, in principle, a transfer to an institution with a different appointing authority is a secondment. In this case, there is job security and, in principle, there is no change in treatment.

[Mikio Yoshida]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

企業の人事異動の一つ。企業の外に向かって行われる点で、同一企業内での就業場所または職務の変更にとどまる配置転換（配転）と異なる。出向には、自己の雇用先（出向元）の従業員の身分を保持したまま、普通は休職扱いとなって別の企業（出向先）で就労する在籍出向と、雇用先の従業員の身分を喪失する移籍出向（転籍または転属ともいう）とがある。いずれの場合も、出向元と出向先との間の出向に関する協定が前提として必要である。移籍出向の場合、出向元との労働契約が解消され、新たに出向先と労働契約が締結される。これに対し、在籍出向の場合は、出向元と出向先の両方に労働契約が存在するとみるか、少なくとも出向先との間で労働契約に近い関係が存在することになる。そのため、出向に関する協定などで、それぞれが負う責任の内容が決められることになる。かつては幹部社員を系列企業などへ派出する形が一般的であったが、しだいに雇用調整の手段として一般従業員も対象とされるようになった。

　出向は、法人格を異にする出向先で労務を提供するものであり、労働条件に重大な変更を伴う。したがって、出向は業務命令で一方的に命ずることはできない。移籍出向の場合、現在の勤務先を退職して出向先と新たな労働契約を締結することになるので、出向する際に労働者の個別的同意が必要である。在籍出向の場合も、判例上、労働者の同意その他の根拠が必要であるとする（1966年3月31日東京地裁判決）。問題は、この同意が出向の際に個別的に行われる必要があるのか、それとも労働契約を締結するとき（採用のとき）に行われた、将来出向を命じられた場合に応じる旨の同意（包括的同意という）で足りるかである。実際には、就業規則に出向に関する規定がある場合、それに同意して採用されたと考えられるので、それを根拠に出向を命じうるかが問題となる。採用時には労働者と使用者では立場に優劣があるので、出向を断ったり、就業規則に同意しないことは困難である。そのため、出向の際に個別的同意が必要であるとする有力な学説もある。これに対し、多くの学説および判例は、そこまでは要求しない。しかし、就業規則の一般的・抽象的な規定では足りず、直接的で明白な規定がなければ出向義務は生じないとする（1973年10月19日最高裁判決）。また、出向義務が生ずる規定といえる場合でも、問題となる個別事例についてみた場合、業務上の必要性や人選の合理性を欠いていれば、当該出向命令は権利の濫用として無効になる（労働契約法14条）。なお、労働協約に出向に関する定めがあっても、それは出向の場合の処遇を定めるものにすぎないから、その定めから個々の労働者に出向義務が生じるわけではない。

　なお、出向は公務部門でも人事交流などの目的で省庁間や地方公共団体、民間企業などとの間で行われるが、実態は多様で法律関係も複雑である。派遣とよばれる場合もあるが、原則的には任命権者の異なる機関への転任が出向である。この場合、身分保障があり、原則として待遇にも変化はない。

［吉田美喜夫］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例