Order for transfer to Tokyo for women with unprecedented children
■ Solution date: June 2015 ■ Job title: Sales affairs
■ Length of service: 12 years 6 months ■ Women
Full-time employees limited to clerical positions hired locally (Fukuoka branch) We were informed of the transfer to Tokyo headquarters because the veteran administrative staff at Tokyo headquarters was in charge of retirement and the office staff at Fukuoka branch was surplus. The union members were in a situation where they could not be transferred, including a single appointment, due to the family structure of a husband and a 14-year-old child.
The labor contracts for full-time office workers were not limited to work locations, but there was virtually no transfer of married women with relocation, and only male employees were transferred on a nationwide scale.
This is a transfer that is contrary to the purpose of Article 16 of the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act (consideration regarding the placement of workers) and Article 3 of the Labor Contract Act (a labor contract that takes into account the harmony between work, life and life), and union members cannot be relocated. I applied for the withdrawal of the transfer order based on the assertion that it was an unjust transfer order issued while knowing.
The employer argued that this transfer order was justified, not a place-of-work contract, insisting that there was no gender difference in transfer. The union members proposed measures to enable Tokyo headquarters operations while working at the Fukuoka branch, and the union is also virtually responsible for childcare care, and gender discrimination and childcare are also promoted internally. The employer did not withdraw the relocation order, although there was a gender gap (no male acquisition record) and there was no agreement between labor and management on the national transfer of female employees.
Since the members could not be transferred and did not wish for a trial struggle, they agreed to leave the company and pay the settlement.