Osaka District Court Ruling March 3, 2020 (p.47, Labor tribunal, Rodo-hanrei #1233)

  In this case, X, who had worked at Company Y's factory for more than 13 years, was dismissed and claimed the invalidity of dismissal, power harassment, and remuneration for overtime work.  The court ordered payment of a portion of the overtime work, but denied all other claims by X.

1. Dismissal
  X had always been a source of serious problems.
  Specifically, the situation was as follows: X was injured once in 2006 and again in 2007 during the product manufacturing process; injured in 2010 during demolition work; injured in 2014 during the operation of a large crane (the use of which became prohibited as a result of this incident); had troubles with superiors and coworkers six times between 2010 and 2013; failed to complete the finishing work he was required to perform in 2014; caused trouble which occurred without X’s accepting guidance in 2014; trouble occurred with colleagues in 2015 and X had to submit a written apology; a minor accident occurred contrary to the prohibition of using the crane in 2015, and X had to submit a written report; trouble with colleagues in 2016; drinking alcohol while working in 2018; and caused troubles in 2018 involving misuse of the crane (four times).
  In addition, minor problems, such as failing to check the instructions or failing to fulfill the instructions, appeared to have occurred frequently.  Under these circumstances, it is natural that the dismissal would be considered invalid.

2. Power harassment and overtime
  Furthermore, X insists that the words and actions of successive superiors constitute power harassment.
  However, although it is obvious that neither of these claims will fall under the category of power harassment, since they were warnings related to the above-mentioned problems, nonetheless, the court has explained the reasons why power harassment is not applicable to any of the claims in a very careful manner.
  On the other hand, the study meeting that was started at the labor union's initiative to have X learn his work, was evaluated as time spent under the direction and orders of the employer since the participation of X was a precondition.

3. Practical points
  The actual situation in this case seems to be that Y's patience has been worn out by X's attempts to resist, even involving the union and refusing to change its work attitude.
  Has Y not objectively assessed X's ability and performance since the personnel evaluation has not been identified as a fact?
  When a dismissal is viewed as a legal termination of an employment contract, the ability and performance of an employee is an inherent obligation to provide service, which is a core obligation of the employment contract.  Therefore, poor performance and ability constitute a default of the main obligations of the contract, whereas episodes such as violations of directions and orders or creating trouble constitute a breach of ancillary obligations of the contract. Therefore, for the purpose of termination of a contract, it will be more difficult to prove the seriousness and illegality of the latter.
  Therefore, if Y had created and operated a personnel evaluation and feedback system for employees, and had made an appropriate evaluation of X, Y would have been more able to control X smoothly and, in certain cases, dismiss X.

※ Pointer (original and only for English version)
<Dismissal>
  Article 16 of the Labor Contract Law stipulates the reasonableness of dismissal in Japan, making it difficult to dismiss employees. In order to prove the reasonableness of dismissal, especially (1) the seriousness of mistakes and failures, and (2) the sufficient opportunity to recover are important points.
Article 16
“A dismissal shall, if it lacks objectively reasonable grounds and is not considered to be appropriate in general societal terms, be treated as an abuse of right and be invalid.”
  Nevertheless, Y in this case was quite hesitant about X's dismissal, and it seems too late to dismiss X. Since the dismissal may have a negative impact, including adversely affecting the motivation of other employees, responses to problematic employees should be appropriate, including dismissal.
Since it is the decision required of management to make a decision that is not too late while complying with (1) and (2) above, you should receive the support of an attorney-at-law who is a labor law specialist familiar with the actual situation of the Company.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

※　日本語原文

※ PR
Rodo-hanrei :
  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.

Value of this article :
  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, and at the study group of Sharoshi in Tokyo. 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!