abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Cette page n’est pas disponible en Français et est affichée en English

Article

24 Nov 2020

Auteur:
弁護士ドットコム

Japan: Tokyo District Court rules against attorney who sued labour union for defamation

"労働組合を訴えた社労士が敗訴 「SNSで名誉毀損」など主張、東京地裁は認めず", 13 Nov 2020

[Japanese-to-English translation provided by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.]

On 13 November 2020, the Tokyo District Court ruled against a labour and social security attorney who alleged that a labour union [Shutoken Seinen Union] threatened him during collective bargaining and defamed him on social media. The plaintiff, a board member of a company operating a restaurant, was seeking 5.5 million yen [approx. 52,600 USD] as part of his lawsuit…

According to the complaint, the major points in the case were as follows:

  1. Whether the defendants’ words and actions before and during collective bargaining constituted threats and were thus illegal,
  2. Whether labour union leaders were involved in a joint enterprise by tweeting criticisms about the plaintiff, and
  3. Whether a magazine article written by Mr. Yamada [a union representative] (in which he said the lawsuit was a SLAPP suit) could be considered defamation.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for the following reasons:

  1. There is no evidence to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims are truthful.
  2. The defendants did not commit an illegal act or are liable for their tweets.
  3. The statement that “this lawsuit is a SLAPP suit” is an opinion or a comment. It also cannot be said that the statement deviates from the bounds of what can be considered a comment.

The court also ruled that “filing this lawsuit can be perceived as an attempt to attack the labour union and to restrict its activities”…

The plaintiff provided comments about the lawsuit on 17 November 2020.

The attorney said that he would not appeal the decision to a higher court, saying that it was “unnecessary.”

The plaintiff said he does barely any work as a labour and social security attorney, instead focusing on work overseas. He said that the online comments by the union “has greatly damaged his overseas business.”

He also said that he would file lawsuits against the Shutoken Seinen Union in the various countries where his business faced damages.