University of Tokyo

Abstract
Survey Number 0871
Survey Title Survey of Attitudes toward Labor Dispute Adjudication, 2010
Depositor Research Committee for Attitude Survey of Labor Tribunal Decision, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo
Restriction of Use For detailed information, please refer to 'For Data Users' at SSJDA website.

- Apply to SSJDA. SSJDA's approval required.
Educational Purpose Available for both research and instructional purposes.
Period of Data Use Permission One year
Access to Datasets Download
Nesstar Not available
Summary This survey was carried out via a questionnaire format to clarify the current status and structure of the opinions of those who actually used the Labor Dispute Adjudication System that began in April 2006.

Under the Labor Dispute Adjudication System, various new efforts were undertaken at the procedural level, including the following: (1) as a general principle, the conclusion of trials within 3 predetermined sessions, (2) the involvement of labor judges who have professional knowledge and experience in labor relations, (3) the combination of judging functions and arbitration functions, and (4) smooth collaboration with litigation proceedings. In 2006 (April to December), the year that the Labor Dispute Adjudication System was implemented, 877 newly accepted cases made use of the system. This number increased rapidly. Despite a slight decline compared to the previous year, the number of cases by 2010 had reached 3,375. Many proactive, sharp critiques of the functions of this system were leveled at it through legal proceedings and the labor organizations involved. Nevertheless, shortly after its introduction, the Labor Dispute Adjudication System became an important system for the resolution of individual labor disputes and is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the future.

We believe that conducting a survey with users of the Labor Dispute Adjudication System is highly significant for the following three reasons:

1. By systematically clarifying the current status and structure of the opinions of users of the system, we can contribute to a better understanding of the actual state of the system itself as well as the functions it performs. We expect this understanding to provide us with clues that will assist in the improvement of future practices and the enrichment of labor judges.

2. By comparing the opinions of users and their structure with the appropriate results of civil litigation surveys, we can gain information that will prove useful in the improvement of both the Labor Dispute Adjudication System and the civil litigation system.

3. A new type of dispute resolution system that has the same characteristics as those of the Labor Dispute Adjudication System may, in the future, be carried over to realms other than individual dispute resolution. We expect to provide the information gained through this survey as valuable reference material for the designing of related systems.

For this survey, we prepared two survey forms: one for laborers (Form A) and one for users (Form B). While the basic structure of the survey forms is the same for both the laborer and user versions, there are areas where we have changed the content and arrangement of individual questions because of differences between the situations faced by laborers and users.
Data Type quantatitive research
quantitative research: micro data
Universe The involved parties (appellant/opponent) that, during the implementation period of the survey, appeared on predetermined dates to either be subject to arbitration under the labor dispute rules of the country's courts or to give oral reports at a labor trial.
Unit of Observation
Sample Size FORM A (laborers): 891 survey targets, number of valid questionnaires: 309, response rate: 34.7%
FORM B (users): 891 survey targets, number of valid questionnaires: 185, response rate: 20.8%
Date of Collection 2010/07/12 – 11/11
Time Period
Spatial Unit Japan
Sampling Procedure
Mode of Data Collection We had courts provide subjects with explanations of the survey as well as participation consent forms. We also had subjects provide addresses on the consent forms to which we would then mail survey forms. Survey forms were also returned via post.
Investigator Research Committee for Attitude Survey of Labor Tribunal Decision, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo, survey carried out by Central Research Services, Inc.

DOI
Sponsors (Funds) We used funds allocated to the University of Tokyo Institute for Social Science "Project for Constructing a Lifelong Growth Employment System" (Research Organization: FY 2008–2013, Research representative: Yuji Genda, Professor of the Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo) which received a consignment from the MEXT "Empirical social science research promotion project aimed at solving problems in the near future."

Related Publications (by the Investigator) Please refer to the abstract in Japanese.
Related Publications (based on Secondary Analysis) List of related publications (based on Secondary Analysis)
Documentation [Questionnaire]
Major Survey Items (1) Incident type, appeal content, involved parties' standing:
Incident type, when the problem occurred, standing under labor dispute proceedings, appeal time, amount charged at appeal
[FORM A only] Employment status at appeal
[FORM B only] Opponent's work capacity/role during the occurrence of the problem, opponent's employment status at appeal

(2) Proceedings until appeal, reasons/expectations for appeal:
Consultation before the appeal, negotiation with the opponent before the appeal, passage through the system and procedures of the labor bureau/labor committee, request of lawyers, information acquisition sources of labor trial procedures, expectations for labor trial proceedings
[FORM A only] Consultation environment during employment
[FORM B only] Communication status between company/organization and employee

(3) Procedures and evaluation of procedural participants:
Prior expectations of fee amounts, burden of manpower/work, opinions/satisfaction with time required, opinions on procedural progress, status of procedure witnesses, impression of/satisfaction with appeal examiner, impression/satisfaction with judge, impression/satisfaction with court official, impression of requested attorney/satisfaction degree, impression of counterparty lawyer

(4) Content and evaluation of results (arbitration/verdict), evaluation of system:
The result of the labor trial procedure, the circumstances of the appeal, the reason why it was not resolved by mediation, understanding the content of the arbitration/verdict, the rights/status gained by the worker, the amount of money awarded to the worker, favorability of arbitration/verdict, the impression of/satisfaction with the result of the arbitration/verdict, degree of importance of the characteristics of the procedure
[FORM A only] Obligation owed by the laborer
[FORM B only] Rights/status gained by the user

(5) Changes in involved parties and workplace following conclusion of proceedings:
After conclusion of proceedings, changes in laborer employment and organizational/HR-related matters.

(6) Involved parties' attributes:
Trial/arbitration experience
[FORM A only] Gender, age, last school graduated from, work capacity at the occurrence of the problem, industry of employer/employee scale/presence or absence of labor union and entry status, salary before problem occurrence and now, languages spoken besides Japanese
[FORM B only] Company/organization industry type, capital, employee scale, presence/absence of labor union, status/affiliated department of respondent/job position

* For details on survey items, please refer to the questionnaire.

Date of Release 2013/12/11
Topics in CESSDA Click here for details

Topics in SSJDA Law
Employment/Labor
Version 2013/12/11 :
Notes for Users Variable and value labels are written in Japanese.