Labor Commission - Labor Relations Commission

Japanese: 労働委員会 - ろうどういいんかい

An administrative committee that mediates labor disputes and reviews unfair labor practices in order to resolve disputes between labor and management.

significance

Under the Constitution of the Empire of Japan before the Second World War, workers' right to organize was not recognized, and the formation of labor unions and labor disputes such as strikes were severely restricted by laws such as the Public Order Police Law and the Administrative Execution Law. However, after the defeat of Japanese militarism in 1945, it was considered essential to liberate the labor union movement and recognize workers' right to organize in order to democratize Japan. Thus, the Labor Union Law (old law) was enacted as early as December of the year of defeat, and the Constitution of Japan, promulgated the following year in 1946, also stipulated that "the right of workers to organize and to bargain collectively and to take other collective action is guaranteed" (Article 28). The Labor Relations Commission was established under the old Labor Union Law as an institution to provide relief for violations of the right to organize, which was thus guaranteed by the postwar Constitution, and as an institution to ensure fair adjustment of labor relations. The Labor Union Law was subsequently amended in 1949, and has since undergone several significant revisions, including a change from the previous system of criminal punishment for unfair labor practices that are violations of employers' right to organize to a system of restitution.

The labor-management disputes handled by the Labor Relations Commission are not disputes over compliance with the Labor Standards Act or individual interpretations of labor contracts (although of course they are often closely related), but rather disputes over so-called collective labor relations, such as violations of the right to organize, such as obstruction of union formation by employers, or mediation of labor disputes. The Labor Relations Commission was established in consideration of the fact that such disputes are complex and require swift and flexible resolution, and unlike courts, which determine the rights and obligations between the parties according to strict procedures, it is characterized by its expertise and swiftness.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

kinds

Under the Labor Union Law, the Labor Union Commission consists of the Central Labor Relations Commission (CLC), which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare, and Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions (Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions) established in each prefecture. Previously, the Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions were called Local Labor Relations Commissions (Local Labor Relations Commissions), but were renamed in 2005. The relationship between the CLC and the Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions differs slightly in terms of their powers and functions, such as the CLC reviewing the reviews of Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions regarding unfair labor practices and having jurisdiction over cases that span two or more prefectures in labor dispute mediation, but in principle they operate as independent administrative agencies.

The National Enterprise Labor Relations Commission (NLC) was responsible for the mediation of labor-management disputes and the examination of unfair labor practices in the four operational divisions operated by the state: postal services, forestry, printing, and minting (the operational divisions other than forestry were made into public corporations or independent administrative institutions in April 2003). Originally, the so-called three public corporations, namely, the Japanese National Railways, the Japan Tobacco and Salt Public Corporation, and the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation, and five operational enterprises including the Alcohol Monopoly, were under the jurisdiction of the general Central and Local Labor Relations Commissions from after the war until 1949 (Showa 24). However, in connection with the deprivation of basic labor rights of public sector workers, which began with the MacArthur Letter, a separate Public Enterprise Labor Relations Commission (Public Enterprise Labor Relations Commission) was established. Following the subsequent privatization of the public corporations, the National Labor Relations Commission was established in April 1987 with jurisdiction over only the four operational enterprises. However, this NLC was also merged with the Central Labor Relations Commission in September 1988 and abolished. Furthermore, the Labor Union Law does not apply to national or local government employees, and therefore the Central Labor Relations Commission and Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions do not handle cases involving these employee organizations.The National Personnel Authority, the Personnel Commission, and the Fairness Commission have been established to replace the Central Labor Relations Commission and Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions and handle adverse disciplinary measures against these employees.The majority of independent administrative agencies established after 2001 are handled by the Central Labor Relations Commission.The Seafarers' Labor Relations Commission, which was previously established to have jurisdiction over seafarers, was abolished in 2008 and came under the jurisdiction of the Central Labor Relations Commission and Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

composition

Both commissions are tripartite, consisting of public interest commissioners representing the public interest, employer commissioners representing employers, and worker commissioners representing workers. The Central Labor Relations Commission and Prefectural Labor Relations Commissions have an equal number of public, labor, and management commissioners. This tripartite structure is one of the characteristics of the Japanese Labor Relations Commission system.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

Permissions and Functions

The functions of the Labor Relations Commission can be broadly divided into two: adjudicative functions (also known as quasi-judicial functions) and accommodative functions. The first, adjudicative function, is centered on the function and authority to examine and judge unfair labor practices by employers, such as "discrimination," "refusal to bargain collectively," and "control and interference," and to grant relief apart from the courts, which is also the main activity of the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, the Labor Relations Commission examines and certifies the qualifications of labor unions, makes decisions on the regional and general binding force of labor agreements, and requests punishment for violations of notice of disputes in public utilities. The other accommodative function is when the Labor Relations Commission gets involved in a labor dispute and assists in its resolution when the parties to the dispute are unable to resolve it through their own efforts alone. Depending on the level of involvement, it can be divided into mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. Conciliation is when a mediator mediates between labor and management, conciliation is when a conciliation committee established in the Labor Relations Commission presents a conciliation proposal to encourage labor and management to reach a settlement, and arbitration is when an arbitration committee resolves the dispute by presenting an arbitration award that is binding on labor and management. Since it is desirable for labor-management disputes to be resolved independently by the parties as much as possible, the Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which stipulates procedures for labor dispute adjustment, also stipulates that the parties to the dispute have a responsibility to make efforts to make independent adjustments (Article 4).

The Labor Relations Commission also has the power to compel labor unions and employers to submit necessary accounting documents. In any case, one of the characteristics of the Japanese Labor Relations Commission is that it has both adjudicative and accommodative functions.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

assignment

The Labor Commission stated as follows:
(1) Unlike court-ordered relief, cases are handled by labor-management experts, and because they are administrative agencies, they can handle cases flexibly and quickly.
(2) It is an independent administrative agency and is guaranteed the autonomous exercise of its powers.
(3) It has a tripartite structure consisting of government, labor, and management, and has both adjudicative and coordinative functions.
It has the following characteristics:

However, in actual practice, the following problems have been pointed out, particularly with regard to the review of unfair labor practices, which accounts for the majority of its activities:

(1) There is a trend of lengthening the number of days required to hear unfair labor practices. As has been criticized, "a decision that is too late is practically equivalent to no relief," and there are also cases where the labor union that filed the complaint is practically destroyed while the Labor Relations Commission is taking its time to hear the case. Therefore, it is currently being considered to set a target for the review period (Article 27-18 of the Labor Union Law), and speeding up the review process is an issue.

(2) Under the current law, when the Labor Relations Commission issues a relief order, the employer is allowed to file an administrative lawsuit to seek the cancellation of the order, which means that the dispute will continue in the district court, the high court, and the Supreme Court, placing a heavy burden on the labor union and union members who are filing the relief request. For this reason, there is criticism that if the Labor Relations Commission issues a relief order, the courts' review will have to be limited to a certain extent, otherwise a "five-in-one court system" will be established, including the prefectural and central labor commissions.

(3) Even if the Labor Relations Commission issues a relief order, there are insufficient measures to ensure its effectiveness.

(4) In the process of investigating unfair labor practices, the investigation often concludes with a mediated settlement without clarifying whether or not the right to organize has been violated, which tends to make the nature of the remedy for the violation of the right to organize unclear.

[Hideo Kinoshita and Mikio Yoshida]

"A Study of Unfair Labor Practices and the Labor Relations Commission System" by Yamato Tetsuo (1987, Daiichi Hoki Publishing)" ▽ "Unfair Labor Practices" edited by the Japanese Labor Law Association (1988, General Labor Research Institute) " ▽ "Legal Theory of Relief for Unfair Labor Practices" by Michiyuki Tetsuya (1988, Yuhikaku)" ▽ "Labor Relations Commission Orders and Judicial Review" by Yamamoto Yoshito (1992, Yuhikaku)"

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

労使間の紛争を解決するために労働争議の調整や不当労働行為の審査などを行う行政委員会。

意義

第二次世界大戦前の大日本帝国憲法の下では労働者の団結権は認められておらず、労働組合を結成したりストライキなどの争議行為を行うことは、治安警察法や行政執行法などの法律で厳しく制限されていた。しかし1945年（昭和20）に日本軍国主義が敗北したのち、日本を民主化していくうえで、労働組合運動を解放し労働者の団結権を承認することが不可欠であると考えられた。こうして早くも敗戦の年の12月に労働組合法（旧法）が制定され、その翌1946年に公布された日本国憲法も「勤労者の団結する権利及び団体交渉その他の団体行動をする権利は、これを保障する」（28条）と定めたのである。労働委員会は、このように戦後憲法上保障されるようになった団結権に対する侵害の救済機関として、また労働関係の公正な調整を図るための機関として旧労組法に基づいて設置されたものである。その後1949年に労組法が改正され、使用者の団結権侵害行為である不当労働行為について、それまでの刑罰が科せられるという科罰主義から原状回復主義に変わるなど、いくつかの重大な修正を経て現在に至っている。

　労働委員会が扱う労使間の紛争というのは、労働基準法の遵守や労働契約の個々の解釈をめぐる争いではなく（もちろん密接に関連することが多いが）、使用者による組合結成の妨害などの団結権侵害あるいは労働争議の調整といったいわゆる集団的労働関係をめぐる争いである。労働委員会は、こうした紛争が複雑な内容をもち、しかも迅速かつ柔軟な処理を必要とする点にかんがみて設置されたのであり、厳格な手続に従って当事者間の権利義務関係を確定する裁判所と異なり、その専門性と迅速性に特徴を有する。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

種類

労働組合法において、労働委員会は、厚生労働大臣が所轄する中央労働委員会（中労委）と、各都道府県ごとに設置される都道府県労働委員会（都道府県労委）からなっている。従来、都道府県労働委員会は地方労働委員会（地労委）とよばれていたが、2005年（平成17）に改称された。中労委と都道府県労委との関係については、中労委が不当労働行為の審査などについて都道府県労委の審査を再審査したり、労働争議調整において二つ以上の都道府県にまたがる事件を管轄するなど若干権限・機能を異にするが、原則としては互いに独立した行政機関として活動している。

　国が経営していた郵政、林野、印刷、造幣の四つの現業部門（林野以外の現業部門は2003年4月に公社化ないし独立行政法人化された）に関する労使紛争の調整や不当労働行為の審査については国営企業労働委員会（国労委）が所管していた。もともと国鉄、専売公社、電電公社といういわゆる三公社とアルコール専売を含む五つの現業については、敗戦後から1949年（昭和24）までは一般の中労委、地労委が所管していたが、マッカーサー書簡に端を発する官公労働者の労働基本権剥奪(はくだつ)と関連して別に公共企業体等労働委員会（公労委）が設置された。その後の公社の民営化などに伴い、1987年4月から四現業のみを所管する国労委が設置された。しかし、この国労委も1988年9月に中労委に統合され、廃止された。また国家公務員や地方公務員には労組法は適用されず、したがって中労委、都道府県労委はこれらの職員団体の事件は取り扱わない。そして中労委、都道府県労委にかわって、これらの職員に対する不利益処分などを取り扱う機関として、人事院、人事委員会、公平委員会が設置されている。なお、2001年以後設立された独立行政法人の大半は中央労働委員会が扱う。また、従来設けられていた船員に関して所管する船員労働委員会は、2008年に廃止され、中労委、都道府県労委の管轄となった。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

構成

いずれの委員会も、公益を代表する公益委員、使用者を代表する使用者委員、労働者を代表する労働者委員からなる三者構成である。中労委、都道府県労委は公・労・使の各委員同数である。このように三者構成をとっているのが、日本の労働委員会制度の特徴の一つである。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

権限・機能

労働委員会のもつ機能は、判定的機能（準司法的機能ともいわれる）と調整的機能の二つに大別される。一つ目の判定的機能の中心は、「差別待遇」「団体交渉拒否」「支配・介入」といった使用者の不当労働行為を審査・判定し、裁判所とは別に救済を与える機能・権限であり、これは労働委員会の活動の主要な内容でもある。このほかに労働委員会は、労働組合の資格審査・証明、労働協約の地域的一般的拘束力についての決議、公益事業における争議予告違反に対する処罰請求などを行う。もう一つの調整的機能とは、労働争議が紛争当事者の自主的努力のみで解決されない場合に、労働委員会が関与して、労働争議の解決を援助することをいう。関与の程度によって斡旋(あっせん)、調停、仲裁に分かれる。斡旋は、斡旋員が労使の話し合いをとりなすことであり、調停は、労働委員会に設置された調停委員会が調停案を提示して労使の妥結を促す方法であり、仲裁は、仲裁委員会が労使を拘束する仲裁裁定を提示することによって紛争を解決するものである。労使間の紛争はできるだけ当事者が自主的に解決することが望ましいから、労働争議調整の手続を定めた労働関係調整法も、当該紛争の当事者に自主的調整の努力をする責務のあることを定めている（4条）。

　労働委員会はさらに、必要な帳簿書類の提出を労働組合・使用者に要求する強制権限などももっている。いずれにせよ、判定的機能と調整的機能をあわせもっていることも、日本の労働委員会の特徴である。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

課題

労働委員会は以上のように、
(1)裁判所による救済と異なり、労使関係の専門家が事件の処理にあたり、また行政機関という性格上事件の処理を柔軟かつ迅速に行いうる、
(2)独立した行政機関であり自主的な権限行使が保障されている、
(3)公・労・使の三者構成をとり、また、判定的機能と調整的機能とをあわせもっている、
などの特徴を有している。

　しかし実際の運用において、とりわけその活動の主要部分を占めている不当労働行為の審査については以下のような問題点が指摘されている。

(1)不当労働行為の審理に要する日数が長期化する状況がみられる。「遅すぎる決定は事実上救済なきに等しい」と批判されているように、労働委員会が審理に手間どっている間に申し立てた労働組合が事実上壊滅させられているというような事態も生じる。そこで、現在では、審査期間の目標を定めることとされており（労働組合法27条の18）、審査の迅速化が課題である。

(2)現行法上、労働委員会が救済命令を出した場合、使用者がその取消しを求めて行政訴訟を起こすことが認められているため、さらに裁判所での争いが地方裁判所、高等裁判所、最高裁判所と続くことになり、救済を申し立てる労働組合・組合員の負担はたいへん大きいものとなっている。このため、労働委員会が救済命令を出した場合、裁判所による審査を一定程度限定しないと、事実上、都道府県労委・中労委の審理とあわせて「五審制」をとることになる点に対する批判もある。

(3)労働委員会が救済命令を出してもその実効性を確保する手段が十分でないことがあげられる。

(4)不当労働行為の審査過程で、団結権侵害の有無を明確にしないまま斡旋的和解により終結することが多くあり、団結権侵害の救済という性格があいまいになる傾向がある。

［木下秀雄・吉田美喜夫］

『大和哲夫著『不当労働行為と労働委員会制度の研究』（1987・第一法規出版）』▽『日本労働法学会編『不当労働行為』（1988・総合労働研究所）』▽『道幸哲也著『不当労働行為救済の法理論』（1988・有斐閣）』▽『山本吉人著『労働委員会命令と司法審査』（1992・有斐閣）』