[My Work] Reading the Fuji TV Third-Party Committee Investigation Report [Human Resources Perspective]

Regarding the "female announcer offering" scandal involving Mr. Masahiro Nakai and Fuji TV, the reports have finally calmed down, so I briefly read through the investigation report (summary version), but

The content forced me to conclude that Fuji TV's organization (its human resources and labor management systems) is not functioning at all.

That is what I have to say.

—

TV and weekly magazines have reported various things about this issue, but it is unclear whether the woman's side or Mr. Nakai's side is truly in the right, and both sides likely have parts that are exaggerated or omitted (to their own advantage).

As for those details, they are not really relevant to my work (that is not my area of responsibility), so I am not particularly concerned, but when looking at this issue as a whole, there is much that many companies can learn from.

Honestly, at first, regarding this matter, I thought,

"Why did this become such a big deal?"
"Wasn't there just some kind of misunderstanding?"

I thought about it lightly, but after reading this report, I realized,

"This was a major issue that the woman had to treat seriously, or else it would be impossible to resolve."

I understood that.

The details of this matter are written starting from page 15 of the investigation report, and if it were true, as a microcosm of such harassment issues, the standard diagram would be,

but that is not the case.

Regarding this matter,

This is the structure, so the female employee had no choice but to make a big deal out of it.

-

As an important premise in human resources and labor, the company is burdened with employer liability.

Simply put, this means,

"The company is not only responsible for paying salaries to employees, but is also held responsible (to a reasonable extent under social norms) for the words and actions of its employees."

that is what it means.

Usually, this term is used when 'the company also bears joint liability for mistakes committed by employees,' but it is also used when the physical or mental health of an employee is harmed (i.e., harassment occurs), as in this case.

Therefore, as an employer,

"Since the target person did not consult us, the company has no responsibility"

is not the way to think; instead,

"We are responsible for having created an organizational structure and culture where they could not consult us"

is how we must think.

-

Also, as a point for whether or not it is recognized as a work-related injury,

whether it was an act related to work

is a perspective, and this is,

Harassment is not recognized simply because it occurs "during working hours" or "on company premises";

whether the act is recognized as being "related to an extension of work duties"

is what is important, and in this case, it is considered natural that it would be recognized as "work" for Fuji TV.

—

How this issue will ultimately be resolved is something that will be known in a few years as the trial progresses.

However, those working in human resources and labor relations, as well as company executives such as presidents and board members, must conduct their daily business so as not to treat this case as someone else's problem.

☆Other HR and Labor Related Articles☆