My Work: The Revised Whistleblower Protection Act (HR Work / Rules of Employment)

I read the news that the revised Whistleblower Protection Act has been enacted, which imposes penalties on companies that dismiss or take disciplinary action against employees for whistleblowing.

That is the news I read.

--

The revised Whistleblower Protection Act is a law designed to protect those who report organizational misconduct, not only in private companies but also in government offices and other public agencies.

It was brought into focus by the issue in Hyogo Prefecture,

and the fact that the former prefectural bureau chief who made the report was disciplined became a major topic of conversation.

Honestly, I was personally quite shocked that disciplinary action was taken (at one's own discretion) against a whistleblower, not to mention harassment (regardless of whether it actually occurred), and that this was done by the head of a government agency, let alone the legal implications.

-

Regarding this revision, the key point is that not only the person in charge who dismissed or disciplined the whistleblower will be penalized, but also the corporation itself will be subject to criminal penalties (a fine of up to 30 million yen for corporations that dismiss or discipline employees for whistleblowing, and up to 6 months of imprisonment or a fine of up to 300,000 yen for the person who decided on the disciplinary action).

By imposing criminal penalties in this way, it prevents the company from making the excuse that "the person in charge did it on their own, and the company has nothing to do with it."

Company problems are basically easier to understand in detail from the inside (from the perspective of someone belonging to the company) than from the outside, and it is also easier to grasp the flow of how things came to be that way.

Therefore, I would like to see whistleblowing become more common.

-

Also, regarding the issue of employee dismissal, "reasons attributable to the employee" is one of the major reasons that are recognized.

If a third party presumes that the dismissal was due to whistleblowing, and if other protection requirements are met, the dismissal or disciplinary action will be judged invalid. Therefore, as a business operator, it becomes necessary to actively assert and prove that the dismissal or disciplinary action was not based on whistleblowing.

It is not just because criminal penalties will be imposed, but I hope that you will not treat this case as someone else's problem, but rather use it to build internal company systems and create regulations.

—

Also, what I thought about this matter is that if such laws had been enacted earlier and it were common practice in society to use them, the illegal loan issues at Iwaki Shinkumi Bank might not have become as large-scale as they did.

When I spoke with a tax accountant I am on good terms with, they mentioned that this matter was a major issue at a level that could have even led to the closure of the entire Iwaki Shinkumi Bank.

Since one of the reasons it became such a major issue was the former management's attitude toward the scandal, would things not have unfolded differently if third-party reporting had functioned appropriately?

☆Other HR and Labor Related Articles☆