Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 411, June 2025

Case No 2177 (Japan) - Complaint date: 26-FEB-02 - Follow-up

Allegations: At its origin, the complainants had alleged that the reform of the public service legislation was developed without proper consultation of workers’ organizations, further aggravating the existing public service legislation and maintaining the restrictions on the basic trade union rights of public employees, without adequate compensation

1. 350. The Committee has already examined the substance of these cases on eleven occasions, most recently at its June 2018 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [386th Report, paras 379–423, approved by the Governing Body at its 333rd Session (June 2018).
2. 351. The Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) (Case No. 2177) submitted additional information in a communication dated 12 March 2025.
3. 352. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 3 March 2025.
4. 353. Japan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 354. At its June 2018 meeting the Committee made the following recommendations [see 386th Report, para. 423].
   • (a) The Committee once again urges the Government to engage meaningful consultation with the social partners concerned, without further delay and in line with its previous recommendations, to:
   • The Committee expects that the necessary legislative amendments will be enacted without delay and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.
   • (b) The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to provide information on the functioning of the NPA recommendation system, as a compensatory measure until the basic labour rights are granted to public servants.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to keep it informed of the results of the remaining lawsuits filed by a number of workers’ unions of national university corporations opposing unilateral reduction of wages.

B. Additional information from a complainant

Right to organize of firefighting personnel

Right to organize of prison staff

Basic labour rights of public service employees

1. 355. In its communication of 12 March 2025, the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) provided the following information with regard to the pending issues:
2. 356. JTUC–RENGO strongly asserted that the Government has failed to act on the recommendations made by the Committee since its last examination of the case in 2018, offering only formal responses and demonstrating no actual progress in the seven years since the Committee’s report was issued.
3. 357. JTUC–RENGO referred to its observation transmitted in August 2024 to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) stating its intent to carefully monitor the Government’s handling of new discussions with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning public service employees, following the conclusions made in June 2024 by the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) of the International Labour Conference. JTUC–RENGO however expressed disappointment with an initial meeting organized on 19 December 2024, finding no indication of a sincere commitment from the Japanese Government to resolve the issues, and describing the meeting as merely a forum for exchanging differing views.
4. 358. The explanations and materials provided by Government ministries simply reiterated the existing constraints and the Government’s unilateral justification, previously criticized by ILO supervisory bodies. Furthermore, the Government introduced topics outside the scope of the CAS conclusions, such as securing human resources and addressing harassment, which JTUC–RENGO perceived as an attempt to avoid discussing basic labour rights. Despite the CAS conclusion’s call for consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations, JTUC–RENGO felt the Government treated the meeting as a mere formality, as reflected in its title “an exchange of opinions”. Lastly, JTUC–RENGO urged the Committee to specify to the Government to include in further discussions the responsible personnel in the Japanese Government ministries, as well as the related social partner, which is the Alliance of Public Services Workers Unions (KOMU–ROKYO), affiliated with JTUC–RENGO.
5. 359. JTUC–RENGO highlighted that while the CAS conclusions included a reference to “further improvements of the status and labour conditions of firefighters”, the precise meaning of this statement lacks clarity. The complainant emphasized that there is a lack of shared understanding regarding this point among the relevant parties in Japan, encompassing employers’ and workers’ organizations.
6. 360. JTUC–RENGO emphasized the extensive history of this issue, noting that eleven reports have been produced since the case was first brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association in February 2002. These reports were grounded in the realities of public employees’ basic labour rights, not just in Japan but elsewhere, and are further supported by international labour standards derived from Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Consequently, JTUC–RENGO argued that the conclusions reached in the Committee’s successive reports are clear, universal and binding. Therefore, JTUC–RENGO urged the Committee to take the most severe measures available against the Government for the immediate resolution to this long-lasting issue.
7. 361. In addition, JTUC–RENGO provided its observation to the CEACR on the various issues:
8. 362. Based on the 2018 CAS conclusions, the Government’s sole concrete action has been consultation with social partners at the national level regarding their view of firefighters as equivalent to the police and its consistency with the application of Convention No. 87. JTUC–RENGO reminded the CEACR that despite the Annual Report of the Government detailing consultations since 2019, no meeting has fulfilled the CEACR’s expectation for progress towards ensuring that firefighters enjoy their right to organize. The core reason is the Government’s firm stance that Japan ratified Convention No. 87 based on the Committee’s view (54th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association) that Japanese firefighting includes “some duties that should be viewed as equivalent to the police”, justifying the denial of firefighters’ right to organize. JTUC–RENGO contended that this stance obstructs any meaningful progress in consultations.
9. 363. JTUC–RENGO also highlighted that during the Noto Peninsula Earthquake (January 2024), firefighting organizations demonstrated a more rapid wide-area emergency and support system than the police and self-defence forces, attributing this to firefighters’ strong sense of duty, unrelated to the right to organize. JTUC–RENGO criticized the Government’s argument that recognizing the right to organize would negatively affect firefighters’ actions as it denies freedom of association and disregards firefighters’ dedication.
10. 364. JTUC–RENGO argued that the Fire Defence Personnel Committee (FDPC) system was established in 1995 through an agreement between the Government and labour, with the aim of enhancing the management of firefighting and ambulance services. While improving this system is considered important, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) released the results of the fiscal year 2022 management situation in October 2023, revealing that the notification’s general meaning under the committee system may not be fully understood in some fire departments. This highlights that the FDPC system’s management has become largely symbolic due to issues like the non-participation of employers with responsibility and authority, especially considering it has been nearly 30 years since its implementation.
11. 365. JTUC–RENGO questioned the Annual Report of the Government claiming that the FDPCs were somewhat successful in improving working conditions for fire defence personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. The committee’s procedures, involving opinion submission, summarization, deliberation, reporting to the fire chief, budget requests, and adjustments, are time-consuming, and the Government has not addressed this issue. In emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, immediate improvements in working conditions are crucial. Effective collective bargaining through the right to organize could have enabled prompt improvements to work duties and conditions based on real-time experiences.
12. 366. Furthermore, while the Report of the Government mentions the establishment of a quarantine work allowance as an achievement, it is argued that this was not due to the FDPC system. Instead, the allowance is believed to have been initiated by the National Personnel Authority (NPA) for national public service employees in March 2020 and later extended to local public service employees, including firefighters. The establishment of the quarantine work allowance is seen more as an effort to align remuneration and working conditions with those of national public service employees.
13. 367. JTUC–RENGO criticized the Government’s continued assertion that prison staff should be considered part of the police force under Article 9 of Convention No. 87, a view based on the 12th and 54th Reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Relying on the 54th Report, issued over 60 years ago, is problematic. JTUC–RENGO recalled that in 2018 the CAS recommended that the Government consult with social partners to determine which categories of prison officers, considered as part of the police, should be exempt from the right to organize and which should have that right. JTUC–RENGO also pointed out that in 2018, both the Committee and the CEACR stated that the fact that some prison officers are authorized to carry weapons does not equate to them being members of the police or armed forces. Therefore, JTUC–RENGO argued that the carrying and use of weapons is not a valid reason to deny prison staff the right to organize.
14. 368. JTUC–RENGO also refuted the Government’s additional reason for denying the right to organize, that it would hinder the prompt suppression of emergencies and the maintenance of order in prisons. JTUC–RENGO contended that prison duties and labour union rights are distinct issues and that the Government’s claim is merely a sophism to deny the right to organize, especially since there is no precedent for such a situation in Japan. JTUC–RENGO criticized the lack of progress in implementing the 2018 Conference Committee’s recommendation to classify prison officers in consultation with social partners, accusing the Government of intentionally ignoring the existence of relevant labour organizations and disregarding ILO supervisory mechanisms. The Government must immediately recognize the right of prison staff to organize as this was essential for improving the closed working environment to make it fair, open and democratic.
15. 369. In the view of JTUC–RENGO, the NPA recommendations, presented by the Government as a compensatory measure for restricting basic labour rights of public service employees, have a history of inconsistent and delayed implementation. Although the recommendations began in 1948, full implementation, both in content and timing, was not achieved until 1970. Furthermore, implementation was postponed in 1982, and subsequent revisions faced reductions and altered timing, demonstrating the recommendations’ lack of binding force and the Government’s discretionary control over their application. The handling of the 2021 NPA recommendation referred to by the Government in its report, which involved salary reductions implemented in June 2022 due to political circumstances, further illustrates the mechanism’s inadequacy and the anxiety it causes among public service employees. In its conclusions in 2018 and 2024, when examining implementation by Japan of Convention No. 87, the CAS urged the Government to ensure that the NPA procedures guarantee effective, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration. JTUC–RENGO drew attention to the continued lack of progress in consultations with social partners on this matter.
16. 370. JTUC–RENGO argued that the establishment of an autonomous industrial relations system was mandated by the Basic Act on National Public Service Employee System Reform, enacted in June 2008. This act required the Government to “provide for” such a system, not merely “consider” it, implying a legislative duty to implement it. While the Government submitted related bills to the National Diet in 2011, they were abandoned due to political divisions, contrary to the Government’s claim that it was due to public opinion. Public opinion surveys at the time indicated support for introducing a labour-management negotiation system for determining working conditions.
17. 371. JTUC–RENGO regretted that, despite the 2018 CAS conclusions highlighting the lack of progress on the autonomous labour-employer relations system and requesting the Government to examine it in consultation with social partners, no concrete action has been taken. JTUC–RENGO criticized the Government’s avoidance of its responsibilities and its repeated delays, stating that the Government’s “careful consideration” means “doing nothing”, as exemplified by the lack of examination into the “benefits and costs” of granting the right to conclude agreements.
18. 372. JTUC–RENGO also refuted the Government’s argument that restrictions on basic labour rights for national public service employees are limited because officials transferred to the private sector or Incorporated Administrative Agencies are granted complete basic labour rights. JTUC–RENGO reiterated that the 2014 reform, which created independent administrative agencies, was an administrative reform to separate manual work and service departments, not a measure to improve the industrial relations system of national administrative organs. JTUC–RENGO argued that the Report of the Government attempted to manipulate the decrease in national public service employees due to administrative reform to justify the existing restrictions on their labour rights.
19. 373. Regarding the Committee’s request for consultation with the social partners on measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system, JTUC–RENGO indicated that the Report of the Government states that it is carefully examining how to respond to the CAS recommendations through consultations with social partners. JTUC–RENGO noted that this differed from previous reports, where the Government indicated it was “exchanging opinions” with “JTUC–RENGO”. However, JTUC–RENGO argued that the Government has not complied with the 2018 CAS recommendation for over six years, which demonstrates the Government’s intentionally dismissive attitude. In response to the conclusion of the 2024 CAS, the Government mentioned a “new exchange of opinions” with domestic employers’ and workers’ organizations. JTUC–RENGO stated it would closely monitor the Government’s good faith in these future developments. To ensure the Government adheres to the Report of the CEACR, JTUC–RENGO urged the Committee to specify: (i) a minimum two-year time frame for the action plan’s formulation; (ii) the responsible personnel in the Japanese Government ministries; and (iii) that the “related social partner” is the KOMU–ROKYO, affiliated with JTUC–RENGO.

C. The Government’s reply

Right to organize of firefighting personnel

Right to organize of prison staff

Basic labour rights of public service employees

1. 374. In its communication dated 3 March 2025, the Government provided the following information:
2. 375. The Government indicated that it provided information in reply to the Committee’s previous recommendations as detailed in its report to the CEACR in 2024.
3. 376. The Government initiated a new dialogue with domestic employers’ and workers’ organizations on issues related to the public service employee system. A meeting for this dialogue, hosted by the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs and the Cabinet Secretariat, was held on 19 December 2024, in accordance with the conclusions of the CAS in 2024. The meeting, including an informal dinner, lasted two and a half hours and was considered productive and well received by the attending employer and worker representatives. The Government was committed to continuing this dialogue to facilitate ongoing fruitful discussions among the social partners.
4. 377. The Government indicated that the December 2024 meeting involved representatives from various relevant ministries and authorities, including the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs, the NPA, the MIC, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency, and the Ministry of Justice, with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare participating as observers. Employer and worker organizations were represented by the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) and JTUC–RENGO. Discussions involved detailed explanations from each ministry/authority regarding the conclusions of the CAS adopted in June 2024, with an emphasis on open communication. According to the Government, JTUC–RENGO expressed satisfaction with the presence of all relevant institutions and anticipated in-depth discussions on each issue, while Keidanren valued the dialogue platform and looked forward to fruitful discussions based on detailed information and explanations. The Government and the employer and worker representatives agreed to continue using this platform for further discussions.
5. 378. The Government indicated that, following the 2018 CAS conclusions, the MIC initiated regular consultations with employee representatives, starting in January 2019, aimed to discuss the Government’s stance that fire defence personnel are considered “police” and how this view aligns with the application of relevant ILO Conventions. Subsequent meetings also included substantial discussions on the FDPC system, designed to incorporate fire defence personnel’s input on their working conditions (2019). Further consultations addressed modern fire administration issues (2020) and harassment concerns (2021), with employees expressing their appreciation for the regularity of these discussions.
6. 379. Continuing these dialogues, the MIC held further consultations to examine the implementation of the amended FDPC system (January 2022) and the re-employment system for fire defence personnel (March 2022). A key point of contention, the classification of fire defence personnel as “police” was debated, with the MIC emphasizing the necessity of fire departments’ cooperation with other organizations due to Japan’s vulnerability to frequent disasters. While some understanding was reached regarding differing views on the right to organize, both parties committed to ongoing exchanges on various issues affecting fire defence personnel. Later consultations also covered workplace harassment, female firefighters’ employment and empowerment, and ambulance services during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the MIC outlining measures to address these challenges (December 2022).
7. 380. The Government argued that the effectiveness of disaster response was highlighted by the large-scale mobilization of fire departments following the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake, demonstrating the need for unified command and coordinated action with other agencies. Efforts to improve the FDPC system intended to facilitate workers’ input, included amendments to its implementation policy in 2018 and subsequent surveys to assess its operational status. To ensure smoother operation, the MIC issued guidelines emphasizing communication between fire chiefs and fire defence personnel regarding FDPC opinions and the implementation of related measures. The Government contended that these efforts have contributed to improvements in working conditions, such as harassment countermeasures and the establishment of allowances during the COVID-19 pandemic, with ongoing efforts to further streamline the FDPC system.
8. 381. The Government argued that prison officers’ duties, which include incarcerating various categories of detainees and possessing the authority to investigate crimes and arrest inmates within penal institutions, align them with judicial police work. Additionally, prison officers are legally authorized to carry and use weapons, like police officials. Therefore, the Government believed that under Article 9 of ILO Convention No. 87, prison officers are appropriately classified as “police”, a view supported by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its 12th and 54th Reports.
9. 382. Furthermore, the Government emphasized the necessity for prison personnel, including but not limited to prison officers, to use force to control emergencies within penal institutions under the direction and supervision of the highest-ranking officer present. The Government argued that granting prison personnel the right to organize would hinder their ability to perform these duties effectively and maintain order and discipline within the facilities. Based on these points, the Government concludes that prison personnel are not entitled to the right to organize.
10. 383. However, acknowledging observations from the CEACR, the Government took steps to create and expand opportunities for prison personnel to express their opinions on their working environment. This includes facilitating exchanges of views between executives and staff representatives at Regional Correctional Headquarters (eight), focusing on improvements to the work environment, staff training and workload reduction (from October to December 2023). These are agencies with authority over penal institutions based on jurisdictional areas. Efforts are also being made to address specific issues in women’s penal institutions (2023), and consultation services and mental health support have been introduced to improve staff well-being, including work–life balance. Despite these measures, the Government maintained its view that prison personnel are not entitled to the right to organize.
11. 384. The Government recalled that the Japanese system places certain restrictions on the basic labour rights of public service employees. This is justified by their unique role as servants of all citizens and the public nature of their functions, which are intended to serve the common interests of society. To compensate for these limitations, neutral, third-party organizations like the NPA and Personnel Committees have been established. These entities are responsible for issuing recommendations and implementing other measures to ensure fair treatment of public service employees.
12. 385. A key function of the NPA is to align the remuneration and working conditions of national public service employees with general societal standards. The Authority conducts annual surveys of working conditions in the private sector, with a particular focus on comparing remuneration levels. Through statistical analysis, the NPA aims to balance pay rates between the public and private sectors by recommending adjustments to address any discrepancies. This system of remuneration revision has been in place since 1960, with the most recent recommendation issued in August 2023. To ensure that its recommendations and measures are appropriate, the NPA actively seeks input from employee organizations. It holds meetings to hear their opinions and requests, which are then reflected in its recommendations and other actions. The frequency of these interactions is substantial, with 190 official meetings held in 2022 and 186 in 2023. Furthermore, when revising specific systems, the Authority consults with both employees and employers. For example, during the ongoing review of the remuneration system, employee organizations have been involved from the early stages, providing feedback on draft proposals.
13. 386. According to the Government, this framework establishes a system where employee organizations can participate in the decision-making process concerning their working conditions and remuneration through the NPA recommendations. The Government, in principle, respects this system and drafts bills based on the Authority’s recommendations. These bills are then deliberated in the Diet, where revisions are made to ensure suitable working conditions for public service employees. Additionally, employees have access to systems for requesting administrative action and reviews related to their working conditions. The Government recalled that the Supreme Court had affirmed that the NPA recommendation system and related measures serve as compensation for the restrictions placed on basic labour rights.
14. 387. While considering the implementation of an autonomous labour-employer relations system, as suggested by the 2018 CAS conclusions, the Government acknowledged various challenges. These include concerns about increased negotiation costs, potential for confusion, and the risk of prolonged negotiations affecting the execution of public services. The 2014 Amendment Act of the National Public Service Act was formulated within the existing framework of restricted basic labour rights and did not include measures for an autonomous labour–employer relations system. The Government maintained that further careful consideration was necessary, along with continued dialogue with employee organizations and other stakeholders, to address the various issues involved. The Government emphasized that it actively engaged in ongoing discussions with employee organizations at various levels on a wide range of issues, including remuneration, work–life balance, and measures to improve the treatment of non-regular and female employees.
15. 388. Finally, in relation to the Committee’s request for consultation with the social partners on the measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system, the Government indicated that it was carefully considering engaging in consultations with social partners, including discussions at the annual ILO Panel on various related themes. Furthermore, following the 2024 CAS conclusions, the Government stated that it would initiate new exchanges of opinions with domestic employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning issues within the public service employee system, demonstrating its commitment to fostering greater understanding with social partners and providing information to the ILO in good faith about its efforts.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

Basic labour rights of public service employees

Right to organize of firefighting personnel and prison staff

Information on lawsuits

1. 389. The Committee recalls that it decided to examine these two cases, initially filed in 2002, in conjunction taking into account that they both initially concern the reform of the public service in Japan and its consequence in terms of realization of freedom of association principles. The Committee notes the additional information from the complainants and the Government in relation to its previous recommendations and on recent steps taken. In this regard, the Committee observes that, since its last examination of the case in 2018, both the complainants and the Government have regularly provided information on the pending matters to the CEACR in the framework of the regular reporting mechanism on the implementation of Convention No. 87, including in 2024. The Committee also observes that the pending matters were also examined by the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) in June 2024.
2. 390. The Committee recalls its long-standing recommendations on the need to ensure basic labour rights for public service employees. In particular, in 2018, the Committee had once again urged the Government to engage meaningful consultation with social partners concerned as regards: (i) granting the right to organize and to collective bargaining to firefighters and prison staff; (ii) ensuring that public employees not engaged in the administration of the State have the right to bargain collectively and to conclude collective agreements, and that those employees whose bargaining rights can be legitimately restricted enjoy adequate compensatory procedures; and (iii) ensuring that those public employees who are not exercising authority in the name of the State can enjoy the right to strike, in conformity with freedom of association principles, and that union members and officials who exercise legitimately this right are not subject to heavy civil or criminal penalties. The Committee had also urged the Government to consult the social partners with a view to determining the scope of bargaining matters in the public service.
3. 391. In view of the information provided by both the Government and JTUC–RENGO, the Committee deeply regrets that the issue of granting basic labour rights to public service employees remains unresolved despite its repeated recommendations. The Committee recalls its view that public servants, like all other workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization, for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests. Local public service employees should be able effectively to establish organizations of their own choosing, and these organizations should enjoy the full right to further and defend the interests of the workers whom they represent [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 336 and 353]. The Committee also recalls that all public service workers other than those engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and priority should be given to collective bargaining as the means to settle disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service. A legislative provision which prohibits public authorities and public employees, even those not engaged in the administration of the State, from concluding an agreement, even if they are willing to do so, is contrary to the principle of free and voluntary negotiations. The practice of granting certain improvements in conditions to public servants, not within the framework of a collective agreement, but as unilateral decisions, even though they relate to bargaining matters (which makes it more a consultation than bargaining) is problematic. In the Committee’s view, this practice does not promote collective bargaining and should be avoided [see Compilation, paras 1241, 1473 and 1479].
4. 392. With regard to the National Personnel Authority (NPA) recommendation mechanism, which was originally presented by the Government as compensation for the restrictions placed on the basic labour rights of public service employees, the Committee notes the view of JTUC–RENGO that this mechanism has a history of defective and delayed implementation. JTUC–RENGO contends that the handling of the NPA recommendation by the Government, which occasioned salary reductions due to political circumstances in 2022, demonstrated the mechanism’s inadequacy and the anxiety it causes among public service employees. The complainant also recalled the conclusions formulated by the CAS in 2018 and 2024 urging the Government to ensure that the NPA procedures guarantee effective, impartial, and speedy conciliation and arbitration.
5. 393. The Committee notes the Government’s argument that the key function of the NPA is to align the remuneration and working conditions of national public service employees with general societal standards. The NPA conducts annual surveys of working conditions in the private sector, with a particular focus on comparing remuneration levels. It aims to balance pay rates between the public and private sectors by recommending adjustments to address any discrepancies. This system of remuneration revision has been in place since 1960, with the most recent recommendation issued in August 2023. To ensure that its recommendations and measures are appropriate, the NPA actively seeks input from employee organizations. It holds meetings to hear their opinions and requests, which are then reflected in its recommendations and other actions. The frequency of these interactions is substantial, with 190 official meetings held in 2022 and 186 in 2023. Furthermore, the Government asserts that, when revising specific systems, the NPA consults social partners. For example, during the ongoing review of the remuneration system, employee organizations have been involved from the early stages, providing feedback on draft proposals. According to the Government, this framework establishes a system where workers’ organizations can participate in the decision-making process concerning their working conditions and remuneration through the NPA recommendations. The Government, in principle, respects this system and drafts bills based on the Authority’s recommendations. These bills are then deliberated in the Diet, where revisions are made to ensure suitable working conditions for public service employees. The Government also recalls that employees have access to systems for requesting administrative action and reviews related to their working conditions. Lastly, the Government recalls that the Supreme Court had affirmed that the NPA recommendation system and related measures serve as compensation for the restrictions placed on basic labour rights.
6. 394. Observing that divergent views persist between the complainant and the Government on the adequate nature of the NPA as a compensatory measure for restrictions placed on basic labour rights of public service employees, the Committee is bound to once again request the Government to continue to provide information on the functioning of the NPA recommendation system as a compensatory measure, until the basic labour rights are granted to public service employees.
7. 395. As a general matter relating to its recommendation for consultation with the social partners on measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system, the Committee notes JTUC–RENGO’s indication that the Government has not complied with the 2018 CAS recommendation to examine carefully the autonomous labour–employer relations system, in consultation with the social partners, for over six years, which demonstrates the Government’s intentionally dismissive attitude. In 2024, the Government indicated that it was carefully examining how to respond to the 2024 CAS conclusions through consultations with social partners. JTUC–RENGO would closely monitor the Government’s good faith in this future development. The Committee observes that JTUC–RENGO expressed disappointment with an initial meeting organized in December 2024, finding no indication of a sincere commitment from the Government to resolve the issues, and describing the meeting as merely a forum for exchanging differing views. JTUC–RENGO asserts that the explanations and materials provided by Government ministries reiterated the existing constraints and the Government’s unilateral justification, previously criticized by ILO supervisory bodies. Furthermore, the Government allegedly introduced topics outside the scope of the CAS conclusions, such as securing human resources and addressing harassment, which JTUC–RENGO perceived as an attempt to avoid discussing basic labour rights. Consequently, despite the CAS conclusion’s call for consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations, JTUC–RENGO felt the Government treated the meeting as a mere formality, as reflected in its title “an exchange of opinions”.
8. 396. The Committee notes the Government’s view that it initiated a new dialogue with national employers’ and workers’ organizations on issues related to the public service employee system. A meeting for this dialogue, hosted by the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs and the Cabinet Secretariat, was held on 19 December 2024, in accordance with the conclusions of the CAS in 2024. The meeting involved representatives from various relevant ministries and authorities, including the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs, the NPA, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), the Fire and Disaster Management Agency, and the Ministry of Justice, with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare participating as observers. Employer and worker organizations were represented by the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) and JTUC–RENGO. Discussions involved detailed explanations from each ministry/authority regarding the conclusions of the CAS adopted in June 2024, with an emphasis on open communication. The meeting, including an informal dinner, lasted two and a half hours and was considered productive and well received by the attending employer and worker representatives. The Government asserts that JTUC–RENGO expressed satisfaction with the presence of all relevant institutions and anticipated in-depth discussions on each issue, while Keidanren valued the dialogue platform and looked forward to fruitful discussions based on detailed information and explanations. Lastly, the Government indicates that all parties agreed to continue using this platform for further discussions.
9. 397. The Committee encourages the Government’s renewed efforts to initiate discussion with the social partners on measures for the autonomous labour–employer relations system. Observing however the divergent views expressed on the appropriateness of the methodology, the Committee urges the Government to engage in meaningful consultation with the social partners concerned in search of the most appropriate mechanism to debate and make progress on the autonomous labour–employer relations system, with a view to ensuring basic labour rights for public service employees. In relation to its previous recommendations, the Committee expects that progress will be made in relation to : (i) ensuring that public employees not engaged in the administration of the State have the right to bargain collectively and to conclude collective agreements, and that those employees whose bargaining rights can be legitimately restricted enjoy adequate compensatory procedures; (ii) ensuring that those public employees who are not exercising authority in the name of the State can enjoy the right to strike under national law, in conformity with freedom of association, and that union members and officials who exercise legitimately this right are not subject to heavy civil or criminal penalties; and (iii) determining the scope of bargaining matters in the public service.
10. 398. Regarding its previous recommendations on the specific issue of granting the right to organize and collective bargaining to firefighting personnel and prison staff, the Committee recalls its view that the functions exercised by firefighters do not justify their exclusion from the right to organize. They should therefore enjoy the right to organize. The right of firefighters to form and join organizations of their own choosing should also be guaranteed (although the right to collective action may be subject to restrictions or a prohibition) [see Compilation, paras 354 and 355]. Furthermore, prison staff should enjoy the right to organize [see Compilation, para. 357].
11. 399. The Committee notes JTUC–RENGO’s allegation that, following the 2018 CAS conclusions, the Government’s only concrete action was to consult social partners regarding the classification of firefighters as equivalent to the police under Convention No. 87 without leading to real progress in securing firefighters’ right to organize. They highlighted the Noto Peninsula Earthquake response from firefighters’ organizations as evidence that firefighters’ strong sense of duty is independent of union rights, countering the Government’s claim that unionization would impede their performance. Additionally, JTUC–RENGO pointed out that the Fire Defence Personnel Committee (FDPC) system, established nearly 30 years ago, has become largely symbolic, with its slow procedures proving inadequate during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, where quicker collective bargaining through the right to organize could have made a meaningful difference.
12. 400. Similarly, JTUC–RENGO condemned the Government’s ongoing denial of prison staff’s right to organize by misclassifying them as police personnel based on outdated interpretations from over 60 years ago. They stressed that carrying weapons does not justify this denial and criticized the Government for ignoring the 2018 recommendation to consult on which prison staff should have organizing rights. JTUC–RENGO argued that emergency management and unionization are separate matters and accused the Government of using flawed reasoning to avoid granting these rights, ultimately calling for immediate recognition of prison staff unions to foster a more democratic and fair work environment.
13. 401. Regarding firefighters, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the 2018 CAS conclusions, the Government, through the MIC, initiated regular consultations with the employees’ side starting in January 2019. These meetings focused on the Government’s position that fire defence personnel should be classified as “police” in line with interpretations of ILO Conventions. The discussions gradually expanded to include the FDPC system, modern challenges in fire administration, and workplace harassment issues. Over time, the consultations addressed additional topics such as amendments to the FDPC system, the re-employment of personnel, gender equality in firefighting, and emergency medical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although disagreement persisted on the core issue of the right to organize, both sides recognized the importance of ongoing dialogue. The Government pointed to the effectiveness of disaster response, especially during the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake, to justify the need for unified command, while also implementing measures to improve the FDPC system’s functionality and responsiveness to workers’ concerns.
14. 402. Regarding prison staff, the Government reiterated its view that prison officers’ roles encompassing detention, investigation, arrests within penal institutions, and authorized use of force-aligned them with judicial police, thus falling under the exclusion clause of Article 9 of Convention No. 87. According to the Government, this stance was supported by historical interpretations from the Committee in previous reports. The Government further argued that granting union rights could compromise emergency response and institutional order. Nevertheless, in response to CEACR observations, it introduced limited reforms to improve communication between staff and leadership, especially through Regional Correctional Headquarters. These efforts included addressing staff training, workload reduction, conditions in women’s facilities, and offering mental health support. Despite these initiatives, the Government continued to deny the right to organize for prison personnel, citing operational imperatives and legal interpretations.
15. 403. The Committee takes due note of the arguments provided both by the Government and the complainant, which again highlight the divergent views. In these circumstances, the Committee expects that the Government and the social partners concerned will include this issue and confront their opinions within the framework of the mutually agreed dialogue mechanism on the autonomous labour–employer relations system and that they will engage in a meaningful debate with a view to achieving consensus on recognizing the right to organize and collective bargaining for firefighters and for prison officers other than those with the specific duties of the judicial police.
16. 404. The Committee recalls its previous request to the Government and the complainant organizations to keep it informed of the results of several lawsuits filed by workers’ unions of national university corporations opposing unilateral reduction of wages in state-run universities on the grounds that a salary cut that was not based on the NPA recommendation constituted a violation of article 28 of the Constitution that guarantees the basic labour rights of workers to organize, bargain and act collectively. The Committee recalls that in the first case considered by the Tokyo High Court in December 2016, the salary cut was found constitutional. This decision became final in October 2017 after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the complainant. Recalling that there were legal actions still ongoing concerning seven state universities, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to keep it informed of the results in these remaining cases.
17. 405. In conclusion, the Committee regrets that the issue of granting basic labour rights to public service employees, which gave rise to the complaints in 2002, remains unresolved despite the time that has elapsed since the Committee’s first examination and repeated recommendations. Given the history of the cases and the differing views on this issue, the Committee believes that the pending matters linked to it require sustained dialogue between the Government and the social partners. While welcoming the Government’s renewed commitment to enter discussion on these matters with the relevant ministries and institutions and representative organizations concerned, the Committee urges the Government to engage meaningfully and without further delay to ensure that public service employees enjoy fully their basic labour rights, and to adopt the necessary legislative amendments to this end. Observing however that this process is being followed within the framework of the regular supervisory mechanism, the Committee refers this legislative aspect to the CEACR.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 406. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the functioning of the National Personnel Authority (NPA) recommendation system as a compensatory measure, until the basic labour rights are granted to public service employees.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to engage meaningful consultation with the social partners concerned in search of the most appropriate mechanism to debate and make progress on the autonomous labour–employer relations system, with a view to ensuring basic labour rights for public service employees. The Committee expects that progress will be made in relation to:
     • (i) ensuring that public employees not engaged in the administration of the State have the right to bargain collectively and to conclude collective agreements, and that those employees whose bargaining rights can be legitimately restricted enjoy adequate compensatory procedures;
     • (ii) ensuring that those public employees who are not exercising authority in the name of the State can enjoy the right to strike under national law, in conformity with freedom of association, and that union members and officials who exercise legitimately this right are not subject to heavy civil or criminal penalties; and
     • (iii) determining the scope of bargaining matters in the public service.
   • (c) The Committee expects that the Government and the social partners concerned will include the issue of granting the right to organize and collective bargaining to firefighting personnel and prison staff within the framework of the mutually agreed dialogue mechanism on the autonomous labour–employer relations system and that they will engage in a meaningful debate with a view to achieving consensus on recognizing the right to organize and collective bargaining for firefighters and for prison officers other than those with the specific duties of the judicial police.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to keep it informed of the results of the remaining lawsuits filed by a number of workers’ unions of national university corporations opposing unilateral reduction of wages.
   • (e) The Committee regrets that the issue of granting basic labour rights to public service employees remains unresolved, despite its repeated recommendations since 2002. While welcoming the Government’s renewed commitment to enter discussion on these matters with the relevant ministries and institutions and the representative organizations concerned, the Committee urges the Government to engage meaningfully and without further delay to ensure that public service employees enjoy fully their basic labour rights, and to adopt the necessary legislative amendments to this end. Observing however that this process is being followed within the framework of the regular supervisory mechanism, the Committee refers this legislative aspect to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.