Whistleblower Protection Act

The dismissal of a worker carried out by a business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) (limited to one that directly employs the worker; the same applies in Article 9) is void if it is on the grounds that the worker, being a whistleblower, has conducted of the preceding Article must not dismiss or otherwise treat in a disadvantageous manner a whistleblower who is or was employed by the business operator on the grounds of conducting whistleblowing provided for in the respective each of the following items in the cases stated in those the respective items.:

the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that harm to the life or physical wellbeing of an individual, or damage to the property of an individual (excluding an individual conducting business; the same applies below in this sub-item (f)) (limited to irreparable damage or substantial amount of damage to an extremely large number of individuals directly caused by the reportable fact; the same applies in Article 6, paragraph (1), item (ii), (b) and item (iii), (b)) has occurred, or there is an imminent danger of its occurrence.

Dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment (in the case of disadvantageous treatment other than dismissal, limited to disciplinary action (meaning sanctions specified by the business operator in the rules of employment pursuant to the provisions of Article 89 of the Labor Standards Act (limited to the part relating to item (ix)) or sanctions specified in the labor contract between the business operator and the workers); referred to as "specific disadvantageous treatment such as dismissal" in the following paragraph and Article 21, paragraph (1)) by a business operator provided for in paragraph (1), item (i) of the preceding Article in violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph is void.

If a whistleblower is subjected to specific disadvantageous treatment such as dismissal within one year from the day on which the whistleblower conducts a whistleblowing provided for in the items of paragraph (1) (or, if the business operator provided for in paragraph (1), item (i) of the preceding Article carries out the specific disadvantageous treatment such as dismissal with the knowledge that a whistleblowing provided for in paragraph (1), item (ii) or (iii) has been made, within one year from the day on which the business operator comes to know of the whistleblowing), with regard to the application of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the specific disadvantageous treatment such as dismissal is presumed to have been carried out on the grounds that the whistleblowing was made.

The cancellation of a worker dispatch contract (meaning a worker dispatch contract prescribed in Article 26, paragraph (1) of the Worker Dispatching Act) by a business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) is void if it is on the grounds that a whistleblower who is a dispatched worker working under the directions and orders of a business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) (limited to a business operator receiving provision of the services of worker dispatch related to the relevant dispatched worker; the same applies in this Article and Article 5, paragraph (2)) A business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) (limited to a business operator receiving provision of worker dispatching services related to the relevant dispatched worker; the same applies in the following paragraph) must not conduct any of the following acts on the grounds that a whistleblower who is a dispatched worker working under the directions and orders of the business operator has conducted a whistleblowing provided for in the items of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article.:

to cancel the worker dispatch contract (meaning the worker dispatch contract prescribed in Article 26, paragraph (1) of the Worker Dispatching Act; the same applies in the following paragraph) relating to the whistleblower;

in addition to what is stated in the preceding item, requesting that the business operator carrying out the worker dispatch related to the whistleblower replace the dispatched worker, or otherwise treating the whistleblower in a disadvantageous manner.

The cancellation of a worker dispatch contract by a business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) in violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph (limited to the part relating to item (i)) is void.

In addition to what is provided for in Article 3, aIf the business operator provided forspecified in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) must not treat a whistleblower who is or was employed by the business operator in a disadvantageous manner, such as by demotion, reduction of salary, or non-payment of retirement allowance, or otherwise, on the grounds that the whistleblower has conducted(iii) entrusts or has previously entrusted the business to a specified entrusted business operator, the business operator must not cancel the contract relating to the entrustment of business, reduce the volume of transactions, suspend transactions, reduce the remuneration, or otherwise treat the specified entrusted business operator disadvantageously on the grounds of the whistleblowing provided for in the itemseach item of Article 3, paragraph (1) by a whistleblower who is a specified person engaged in entrusted business for the specified entrusted business operator.

A business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (v) (limited to a business operator stated in (a) of the item; the same applies in the following paragraph and Article 8, paragraph (4)) must not reduce the remuneration or otherwise treat the whistleblower disadvantageously (excluding dismissal) on the grounds that the whistleblower, who is or was an officer of the business operator, has conducted a whistleblowing provided for in the following items when stated respectively in those items:

if the whistleblower considers that a reportable fact has occurred, or is about to occur:whistleblowing to the recipient of services or other designated person;

if one of the following applies: whistleblowing to an administrative body or other designated person that has the authority to impose a disposition or make a recommendation or other act regarding the reportable fact:

if the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that a reportable fact has occurred or is about to occur despite efforts being made to conduct investigative and corrective measures (meaning measures necessary for investigation and correction of the reportable fact with the same level of care as that of a prudent manager; the same applies in (a) of the following item);

if the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that a reportable fact has occurred or is about to occur, and also that harm to the life or physical wellbeing of an individual, or damage to the property of an individual (excluding an individual conducting business) has occurred or there is an imminent danger of its occurrence.

if one of the following cases applies: whistleblowing to a person to whom reporting the reportable fact is considered necessary to prevent its occurrence or the spread of damage it causes:

if a whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that a reportable fact has occurred or is about to occur despite efforts being made to conduct investigative and corrective measures, and one of the following applies:

the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that if they conduct whistleblowing provided for in the preceding two items, they will be subject to dismissal, reduction of remuneration, or other disadvantageous treatment;

the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that if they conduct whistleblowing provided for in item (i), the evidence for the reportable fact might be concealed, counterfeited, or altered;

it is requested that the whistleblower does not conduct whistleblowing provided for in the preceding two items by the recipient of services without just cause.

if the whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that a reportable fact has occurred or is about to occur, and also that harm to the life or physical wellbeing of an individual, or damage to the property of an individual (excluding an individual conducting business) has occurred or there is an imminent danger of its occurrence.

If a whistleblower who is an officer is dismissed by the business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (iv)(v) on the grounds of having conductedconducting whistleblowing provided for in the respective following items inof the cases stated in those itemspreceding paragraph, the whistleblower may claim compensation for damages arising from the dismissal from the business operator.

The business operator provided for in each item of Article 2, paragraph (1) may not claim compensation from the whistleblower who has conducted whistleblowing on the grounds that the business operator has suffered damage due to the whistleblowing provided for in each item of Article 3 and each item, paragraph (1) and each item of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article.

The provisions of Article 3 do not preclude the application of the provisions of ArticleArticles 14 through 16 of the Labor Contracts Act (Act No. 128 of 2007).

The provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) do not preclude the application of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Labor Contracts Article 5 and Article 6, paragraph (3) of the Act on Ensuring Proper Transactions Involving Specified Entrusted Business Operators (including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 17, paragraph (3) of the Act).

The provisions of Article 6 , paragraph (2) do not preclude the application of the provisions of other laws and regulations to the effect that a person who has been dismissed as an officer by a business operator provided for in Article 2, paragraph (1), item (iv)(v) on the grounds of having made a report concerning a reportable fact may claim compensation for damages arising from the dismissal against the business operator.

The prohibition of dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment, on the grounds of having conducted whistleblowing provided for in the items of Article 3, ofprovisions of Article 3, paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply to national public employees in the regular service, court employees to whom the Act on Temporary Measures concerning Court OfficialsConcerning Court Employees (Act No. 299 of 1951) applies, Diet employees to whom the Diet OfficersEmployees Act (Act No. 85 of 1947) applies, corps personnel provided for in Article 2, paragraph (5) of the Self-Defense Forces Act (Act No. 165 of 1954), and local public employees in the regular service (referred to as "regular service national public employees, etc." in this Article) is governed, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 3 through 5, by the provisions of the National Public Service Act (Act No. 120 of 1947; including as applied mutatis mutandis under the Act on Temporary Measures concerning Court Officials), the Diet Officers Act, the Self-Defense Forces Act, and the Local Public Service Act (Act No. 261 of 1950). In this case, a business operator provided for. With regard to the application of the provisions of Article 3, paragraph (1) and Article 21, paragraph (1), the term "dismissal" in Article 3, paragraph (1) is deemed to be replaced with "disciplinary dismissal, dismissal on the grounds of unsuitability", and the term "specific disadvantageous treatment such as dismissal" in Article 221, paragraph (1), item (i) must apply the provisions of those Acts so that no dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment is imposed on regular service national public employees, etc. on the grounds of having conducted whistleblowing provided for in the items of Article 3 is deemed to be replaced with "dismissal on the grounds of unsuitability or disciplinary action".

Any person who conducts whistleblowing as provided for in the items of Article 3 , paragraph (1) and the items of Article 6, paragraph (1) must make efforts not to damage the legitimate interests of others and the public interest.