#3: Yomiuri Television Broadcasting (Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance) Case

Osaka District Court Ruling June 24, 2020 (p.123, Rodo-hanrei #1231)

  In this case, Employee X, who was in charge of clerical work after joining Company K as a TV cameraman, filed an application for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, or workers’ compensation due to suffering from depression attributable to work-related stress.  Because Labor Standards Inspection Office Y did not recognize X’s claims as an “industrial accident”, he filed a lawsuit to have Y's decision set aside.  The court examined each cause of X's claimed stress and denied X's claim (affirming Y's decision).
  Like many other cases, this judgment adopts the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s (MHLW's) "Certifications Standards" as the determination framework, and determines cause-and-effect relationship (job-related) by referring to the types of events that cause stress as listed in these "Certifications Standards" to evaluate the stress level.  However, we will not particularly examine this determination framework in this article.  In this article, we will examine fact-finding and evaluation of evidence.

1.Credibility of X’s testimony

  It is noteworthy that the court evaluated X's assertions and testimony about a number of episodes in which he was caused great stress in the workplace as contrary to facts or exaggerated.
  I do not intend here to discuss, for example, whether this is morally acceptable.  This is because, as there are phrases such as "hypersensitive victims" and "delusions of persecution," there are some people who, without any ill will, even if there is no harm, hostility, aggression, evasion, etc. against them in their environment, feel that there is or are more likely to feel such beyond what actually exists.  In addition, the same may occur as a problem on the Company’s side.  There are many cases in which courts evaluate the beliefs and behavior of managers and officers who have strong beliefs and biases as contrary to facts or exaggerated.
  In this case, the court did not make a finding casting doubt on X's testimony only by comparison with the testimony of other employees who denied X's testimony, but rather the court supported its decision based on the facts that contradicted X’s testimony according to the objective circumstances.
  Specifically, the court pointed out (1) facts that are contrary to X's testimony (e.g., facts that can be objectively ascertained by examining who actually took charge of the work after the assertion that X was given the job, etc.), (2) the fact that X's working hours were short (there was little overtime) and that they were not particularly long, (3) the intensity of X's work which was not particularly high, and (4) the fact that X's testimony was inconsistent and unreasonable (p.139 "4", Rodo-hanrei #1231).
  In addition, the Court found that a total assessment of three stress factors did not result in a "strong", out of strong, medium, and weak.

2.Practical points

  Such a situation where the testimony of the company witnesses and the employee witness differs widely is often found in labor law cases.  In particular, this is often seen in cases of harassment and mental health.
  At least in relation to the cases introduced in the Rodo-hanrei reporter for the last few years, judges very carefully examine which of the above contradictory testimony is reasonable (at least if it is the main issue) and make a fact-finding.  Currently, cases where the testimony conflicts, it will be considered that neither side has prevailed and there will be a simple finding that the facts are not proven are almost never seen.
  In this sense, the method of finding facts is consistent, especially where testimony is inconsistent.  In the comment on this case ruling, the analysis was given that "the current situation is that there is a significant difference between the actual fact-finding and evaluation methods" with regard to the determination of cause-and-effect relationship (upper right of 126 on the same page).  However, this opinion is contrary to my opinion.
  There are occasional discrepancies between employees and managers who raise problems such as harassment and mental health problems. In such cases, it is important to examine as to which assertions and statements are more reasonable, and to objectively determine the actual situation of problems, rather than simply dismissing them as dubious.

※  Japanese original

※　Among the Japanese case law books relating to labor and employment law, the Rodo-hanrei is the oldest and most prestigious, having been published since 1967.

労働判例

※ I am a facilitator of a monthly study that covers all cases in the Rodo-hanrei, at the Japan In-house Lawyers‘ Association, JILA in Tokyo and Osaka. This series of articles are the result of the study group.
※ This series has turned into a book, from the publisher of Rodo-hanrei! So this series of study and articles are recognized as the most reliable guidebook!

実務家のための労働判例読本 2021年版