Employment Termination Dispute for Japanese Manufacturer

Our first action was a procedural audit of the termination plan. The internal audit findings were sound substantively but several procedural elements required strengthening: the workplace trade union had not yet been consulted as required for senior employees, the disciplinary committee composition needed adjustment, and the written notice draft was vulnerable to procedural challenge. We advised waiting four working days while these elements were corrected — a small delay that materially strengthened the case.

With procedural integrity established, the disciplinary committee convened and recommended termination. The trade union was formally consulted and provided written opinion. The written termination decision (specifying grounds, supporting evidence, severance calculation, and the employee's right to challenge) was issued. The employee initiated mandatory conciliation at the District People's Committee within three weeks of termination.

At conciliation, we presented the comprehensive evidentiary file: the audit findings, the procedural compliance documentation, witness statements from subordinate employees confirming the overtime fraud, and the precise statutory basis for termination. The employee's counsel had presented a generic wrongful-termination claim but no substantive response to the audit findings.

We also engaged actively to ensure the matter remained contained. We prepared communications for the workforce explaining the disciplinary action while protecting the employee's privacy. We met with the senior trade-union representatives to confirm the company's continued commitment to fair employment practices. We conducted a brief refresher training session with all department heads on overtime approval policy.

The matter resolved at conciliation with a confidential settlement at favourable terms for the employer: the termination stood, no reinstatement, severance limited to statutory minimum (approximately USD 11K for twelve years' service), and a mutual non-disparagement clause. The total cost to the employer was substantially below the USD 200K range that an unfavourable arbitration outcome could have produced.

More importantly, no other employees pursued similar claims. The trade union's working relationship with management remained strong. The company implemented improved overtime approval procedures and conducted annual compliance training for all supervisory staff. There has been no recurrence of similar issues in the four years since.