A Canadian expatriate accuses his employer of having harassed him for asking to benefit from the device. The Court of Appeal dismissed him, even accusing him of having publicly denounced the facts.
by
“It’s time to create a new working environment in Japan. Everyone must be able to have a family and make a career. It is obvious, right?” Glen Wood campaigned in Japan for fathers to take a parental leave. A real right but very theoretical, explains this Canadian, patron of smart vision logistics, because, in Japanese society, the employee remains “the property of the company, not the property of the family. Also, if you take a leave of Paternity, you commit an act of betrayal “. “I think this way of thinking remains strong,” he said.
himself experienced it: the Tokyo Court of Appeal rejected, Thursday, June 23, the harassment complaint he had filed against his former employer, the house of Mitsubishi Ufj Morgan Stanley, Because he wanted to take a paternity leave.
The case begins in 2015, when he learns that he will become a father. Resident in the archipelago for almost thirty years, the well rated financier knows that the Japanese parental leave system is advantageous: fathers can take a leave until the child’s first anniversary by receiving up to 67 % of their income. Glen Wood postulates. The company abruptly rejects its requests.
Her son was born in October 2015. The child is premature. His survival is threatened. Despite this, his employer refuses that Glen Wood will join his family. After a few days, no longer holding it, he left his post, putting the business in front of the fait accompli. He then ceases to be paid. Then he begins procedures, notably entering the Ministry of Social Affairs for an advisory opinion, and obtained in December his paternity leave.
At his return to the office in March 2016, the company makes him pay for his obstinacy. Here he is closet. He falls into depression and takes sick leave. Restored, he returns to learn his demotion “with a salary amputated by more than 50 %”. In 2018, Glen Wood was returned without compensation.
For him, it is clearly harassment and he files a complaint. At first instance, the court – which refused to hear the witnesses he submitted – rejects his allegations, saying that he had not found “reasonable reasons” characterizing harassment. Mr. Wood is even criticized for making the public affair instead of resolving it discreetly with the company. The judgment is confirmed on appeal. Glen Wood today wants to bring the case to the Supreme Court, while militating for a real acceptance of paternity leave.
You have 25.74% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.