"管理職8人から5時間超の「パワハラ説教」で労災認定　被害男性が会社提訴", 13 Aug 2020

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

A man who was formerly employed at a metal company in Kyoto filed a lawsuit in the Kyoto District Court on August 13. He is seeking 13 million yen for damages incurred while he took a leave of absence due to mental illness caused by power harassment and long working hours…

He has already submitted a workplace accident claim to the Kyoto Labour Inspect Office, which was initially denied. However, after he appealed the decision…, the Kyoto Labour Office determined that his illness was a workplace accident that was caused by his job.

[His lawyer] said that the company had normalized long working hours. Although the work environment was improving, it was not unusual for employees to work beyond the “karoshi line”--80 or 100 hours a month outside of regular working hours.

…In September 2015, the employee was subjected to over five hours of reprimanding from eight management staff after he had supposedly “nodded his head at a customer in a dismissive way.”

At the time, he was driving a car that his supervisor was guiding. He says that he had merely moved his head to make eye contact with his supervisor to notify him of the customer. However, the company did not accept his explanation.

He recorded the incident on a voice recorder…

After this incident, his mental health deteriorated, with the Labour Office determining that he was suffering from “adjustment disorder”…

In February 2016, he was transferred to another factory, which required him to commute over 2.5 hours one way…

After the transfer decision, his health deteriorated to the point that he could not get out of bed, and he was no longer able to go to work. After he ran out of paid leave days, the company counted the days when he could not go to work as missed days. In March 2017, the company unilaterally announced his resignation after the end of his sick leave period.

On August 17, the company responded that “it could not comment because it had not received the complaint.”