The Japanese National Railways reform method
 | This article comments on laws and ordinances in Japan without a description in particular. In addition, I may not reflect the latest laws and ordinances revision. Please talk about the case that oneself met with practically with a law-related expert. Please read the disclaimers. |
| The Japanese National Railways reform method | |
|---|---|
 Japanese laws and ordinances | |
| Popular name, abbreviated designation | The reform of National Railway method |
| Laws and ordinances number | 1986 law 87th |
| Effect | Existing law |
| Kind | The traffic method |
| Main contents | About the reform by division and privatization of Japanese National Railways |
| Laws and ordinances concerned | JR company law, the Japanese National Railways Reconstruction Acts |
| Text link | Laws and ordinances data offer system |
The law that determined that the Japanese National Railways reform method (にほんこくゆうてつどうかいかくほう, December 4, 1986 law 87th) performed the radical reform of the management form of the failed Japanese National Railways by division and privatization of Japan. The last revision is October 19 law 136th (1998) in 1998. The jurisdiction ministries and government offices are Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The abbreviated designation is the reform of National Railway method.
Table of contents
Constitution of the law
- Chapter 1 basic rule (Article 1 - Article 5)
- It prescribes it about a country, Japanese National Railways, duty of the local public entity.
- Basic policy (Article 6 - Article 18) about the reform of the Chapter 2 Japanese National Railways
- It is a rule about the succession of a debt, Japan Railway Construction Corporation assets and the debt, a shift to Japanese National Railway Settlement Corp. for six division and privatization of the passenger business, separation, privatization of the freight business, transfer of each business of a railroad ferry, passenger car, telecommunications, management stability fund, long term of the Mishima company.
- Transfers such as the business of the Chapter 3 Japanese National Railways (Article 19 - Article 27)
- It prescribes it about various procedures based on the rule of Chapter 2.
- Additional clause
The process of the JR non-adoption case and interpretation of fundamental law Article 23
Process of the case
It was approximately 200,000 that came to JR by reemployment among approximately 277,000 staff of Japanese National Railways by Japanese National Railways division and privatization of April 1 (1987) in 1987 carried out based on this law (as a result, approximately 7,600 reemployment undecided people occurred, and it acted as Japanese National Railway Settlement Corp. for the mediation of the re-workplace, but 1,047 finally refused reemployment except JR, and it was discharged).
Because National Railway Workers' Union (National Railway Workers' Union) against division and privatization, all Japanese National Railways powered vehicle labor unions (all Doro), a lot of members of an association of the Japanese National Railways Chiba powered vehicle labor union (Doro Chiba) were included in this JR non-adopter, 3 above associations stated relief in in succession local labor relations committees of the whole country in (1987) in 1987 saying, "JR performed unfair labor profit called the discrimination by the position association at the time of employee adoption.". Each local labor relations committee gave the relief order of employing all the target people retroactively to the day of the division and privatization, but the JR companies expressed their disapproval of this and stated reexamination in the Central Labour Relations Commission (middle trouble committee). Because the middle trouble committee member gave the order along the local labor relations committee, JR woke up administrative litigation for the cancellation of the middle trouble committee order in the Tokyo District Court and reclaimed 3 associations for adoption. Tokyo District Court, Tokyo High Court, all the Supreme Court gave judgment of the JR winning the case, and National Railway Workers' Union withdrew the final appeal of the case that remained last (2004) on November 11 in 2004, and the perfection winning the case of the JR companies was settled.
Issue
The biggest issue in this a series of relief statements and trial is interpretation of Article 23 of this law that established the adoption of the JR employee. For reference, I raise the text which became the issue.
(the staff of the succession corporation)
- The establishment committee (... abbreviation ...) of the Article 23 succession corporation shows a standard of the adoption of the working conditions of the staff of each succession corporation and the staff for the staff through Japanese National Railways and shall recruit the staffs.
- When a standard of working conditions and the adoption was shown for the staff by the rule of the foregoing paragraph, I confirm the intention of the staff of the succession corporation and the staff of the Japanese National Railways about it being, and 2 Japanese National Railways chooses the person that it should be the staff according to a standard of the adoption of the clause to modify the succession corporation concerned from the person who displayed the intention that it is the staff according to a succession corporation and they make the list and shall submit it to the establishment committees.
- It is the person who was informed of adopting it, and, in the case of the enforcement of the rule of additional clause Clause 2, the person who in fact is the staff of the Japanese National Railways puts it at the time of establishment of the succession corporation, and, among the staffs of the Japanese National Railways listed in the list of 3 foregoing paragraphs, it is adopted as the staff of the succession corporation concerned by the establishment committees.
- 4 (almost)
- About the adoption of the staff of 5 succession corporations (... abbreviation ...), I do the act that the establishment committee of the succession corporation concerned did and the act done for the establishment committee of the succession corporation concerned with the act that the each succession corporation concerned did and an act done for the succession corporation concerned.
- Six or seven (almost)
Order of the claim of 3 associations and the local labor relations committee
- JR is the same as Japanese National Railways substantially, and the responsibility belongs to establishment committee = JR if there is unfair labor profit for "the making of the list of the person whom I chose according to an adoption standard" that Japanese National Railways performed.
Order of the Central Labour Relations Commission
- When the making of the list said to that Japanese National Railways should perform it in Article 23 Clause 2 originally entrusted Japanese National Railways with the establishment committee of the succession corporation doing, you should interpret it.
- Thus, I can consider that there was Japanese National Railways in the position of the auxiliary engine of the establishment committee, and the main constituent of the adoption is an establishment committee.
- Thus, establishment committee = JR should be due to the responsibility if there is unfair labor profit in the making process of the list which Japanese National Railways performed.
Claim of JR
- It is Japanese National Railway Settlement Corp. to succeed a juridical person of Japanese National Railways, and this is specified in fundamental law Article 15 as "a shift". Thus, Japanese National Railways and JR are alternate method personalities.
- Article 23 Clause 2 specifies that Japanese National Railways makes the list in own authority and responsibility. Thus, it is impossible that an establishment committee employs the person who does not appear in this list, and establishment committee = JR is irresponsible.
Judgment (2003 (2003) December 22 First Petty Bench) of the Supreme Court
- The fundamental law isolates Japanese National Railways in each stage of the procedure of the adoption of the staff and the authority of the establishment committee definitely and prescribes it, and Japanese National Railways takes responsibility for the unfair labor profit as the user that it is said in Labor Union Law Article 7 exclusively, and establishment committee = JR does not take responsibility. （→Supreme Court trial example）
Former plaintiffs found consolation money based on judgment of the Supreme Court afterwards against the incorporated administrative agency Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency which succeeded duties of Japanese National Railway Settlement Corp. if discharge was invalid; filed a suit. The Tokyo District Court gave judgment of the plaintiff winning the case about consolation money request (2005) on September 15 in 2005, but both plaintiff, defendants appealed.
Allied item
- Japan Telecom
- Railway Technical Res. Inst.
- JR bus
- Ryutaro Hashimoto
- Hiroshi Mitsuzuka
- Japanese National Railways powered vehicle labor union
- Railroad labor union
- All-Japan railroad labor union total alliance society (JR total ream)
- Association of Japanese railroad labor union society (association of JR)
- Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority
- Railroad bond
This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia The Japanese National Railways reform method
This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.
In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.