The creativity of the judge faced with new health-at-work problems: the Japanese case of karôshi and karôjisatsu
- Cet article est une traduction de :
- La créativité du juge à l’épreuve des nouveaux problèmes de santé au travail : l’exemple du cas japonais du karôshi et karôjisatsu [fr]
Résumés
Les récentes décisions de justice en France mettent en cause l’organisation du travail et le management comme facteurs majeurs de risques psychosociaux susceptibles de générer du stress professionnel pouvant conduire au suicide. Cette approche globale portant sur l’organisation du travail et les pratiques managériales dans le monde de l’entreprise contraste avec l’approche processuelle japonaise portant sur les critères et les conditions d’établissement du lien de causalité entre travail et maladie (karôshi), et entre travail et suicide (karôjisatsu). Au Japon, l’individualisation des cas et le retrait des organisations syndicales de la lutte anti-karôshi à la fin des années 1980 ont transformé la nature des mobilisations, en mouvements de lutte par le droit et pour le droit. L’organisation du mouvement par les avocats japonais, en s’appuyant sur les décisions de justice, a abouti à de profonds changements de la loi et du droit du travail.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés :
karôshi, maladies professionnelles, suicides, loi, prévention, responsabilité civile, avocatsPlan
Haut de pageTexte intégral
- 1 A. Sala and E. Kasagi, « La mobilisation du droit et le recours aux contentieux dans les cas de mor (...)
1In Japan, the mobilisation of doctors and lawyers in the « anti-karôshi » movement has no doubt contributed to the creative approach taken by judges confronted with new health-at-work problems. Recourse to court action can in fact be seen as a part of a strategy of mobilisation of the law. Japanese karôshi (death by overwork) and karôjisatsu (suicide by overwork) cases are an illustration of the use of the law as a form of protest by workers, their dependents and their lawyers1.
- 2 This great reform of the labour laws took place as part of the policy on « work style reform » (hat (...)
2Between 1987 and 2010, following numerous legal cases, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare amended the administrative circulars relating to the recognition of these cases as occupational illnesses, to take account of rulings handed down by the courts. Since 2010, the list of occupational illnesses, equivalent to the « tableaux » in French law, contains new clauses to cover these two types of illness (brain and cardiovascular diseases, number 8 on the list, and mental illness or behavioural disorders, number 9 on the list). In 2014, the adoption of the « Act on Promotion of Preventive Measures against Karôshi » was considered as the culmination of the social mobilisation and legal debates aroused by karôshi and karôjisatsu since the 1960s. Finally, the 2018 reform enshrined these changes in the labour laws, by introducing the first statutory working times regime2. In the Japanese judicial system, case law is a source of law that can precede a change in legislation.
- 3 See C. Okamura, Karoshi- Karojisatsu kyusai no riron to jitsumu, Syunpousya, 2002.
3The judicialisation of karôshi/karôjisatsu results from the gap between legal opinion and the standards laid down in the administrative circulars. Between 1967 and 2002, over a hundred decisions made by Labour Standards Inspection Offices (LSIOs) were overturned by the courts, including seven that were the subject of Supreme Court rulings, which explains the changes to the administrative circulars on the recognition of karôshi and karôjisatsu as occupational illnesses3.
4This contribution presents the main judicial decisions on cases of karôshi and karôjisatsu (I) and the consequences they had on the content of the applicable administrative circulars (II). Particular attention will thus be paid to the work done by the actors mobilised in the anti-karôshi movement, which may constitute a source of inspiration for judges. Finally, we will address the French case of institutional harassment, in order to engage a reflection on the link between these court decisions and changes in the organisation of work (III).
I- The methods of occupational illness compensation that apply to cases of karôshi and karôjisatsu
- 4 E. Kasagi, « La notion de maladies professionnelles et son évolution en droit de la sécurité social (...)
5In Japan there are two legal methods of compensation applicable to occupational illnesses in karôshi or karôjisatsu cases: compensation by the Social Security and compensation by the employer based on civil and individual liability4. It is through these two systems (A) and within the framework of civil law, labour law and administrative law, that the main actors involved - lawyers and doctors - have conducted their « anti-karôshi » campaign (B).
A - The two compensation schemes
6The first system - compensation provided for under the « Industrial accidents and diseases » branch (hereinafter « IAD ») of the Social Security (Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act - « IACI Act ») - is a flat-rate scheme and does not require proof of any fault on the part of the employer. However, it is necessary to prove the link between the work and the illness. The Social Security system compensates victims of IADs (or their dependents) through different types of allowances, depending on the injury or harm suffered by the victim. Compensation by the Social Security is granted by an administrative decision made by the head of the Labour Standards Inspection Office (LSIO). If compensation is refused, the victim can challenge the decision in the administrative court, where the judge may overturn the administrative decision and impose a decision to grant compensation.
7The second system is based on the employer’s civil liability - either tortious or contractual - in the event of the latter committing a fault or negligence (Articles 415 and 709 of the Civil Code - minpô). The amount of the compensation is fixed according to the injury suffered by the victim; the burden of proof lies with the applicant. This type of compensation is awarded by a court ruling, in accordance with civil law, after legal proceedings brought by the victim against the employer. Civil compensation is more comprehensive that that awarded by the Social Security, since the latter does not cover mental distress.
- 5 In French law, the recognition of industrial accidents and occupational illnesses, as a rule, exclu (...)
8Japanese law allows victims to pursue the judicial and the administrative proceedings at the same time without imposing any specific conditions5. The advantage of using the IAD branch of the Social Security lies in the victim being spared the need to prove fault on the part of the employer. Victims are free to choose between these two procedures, or to bring both types of proceedings at the same time depending on the type of compensation sought and the expected difficulty, in particular as regards proving the employer’s fault, the injury and harm incurred and the link between work and the occurrence of the disorders.
B - Challenging the decision not to grant compensation
- 6 E. Kasagi, op.cit.
9The conditions that apply to compensation are established by administrative circulars issued by the Minister of Labour, which are not binding. By fixing the conditions of the administrative presumption of the relationship of cause and effect between illness and work, these circulars are supposed to facilitate the work of the LSIO and ensure consistency in the decisions made6, given that the Japanese list of occupational illnesses generally leaves a large margin of interpretation. These circulars therefore play a decisive role in the recognition of the occupational nature of the illness.
10The first standards governing applications for the recognition of work-related accidents and brain and cardiovascular diseases appeared in the 1961 circular (Kihatsu no. 116, 13 February 1961). According to this text, the applicant had to prove that the worker had been subjected to an extraordinary workload or working conditions on the day of the occurrence of the disorders. This condition being very strict, the number of cases recognised was extremely low.
- 7 C. Okamura, op.cit.
- 8 Tokyo District Court, Rominshu 18-3, p. 686, « Nihon kinkai hôgei » case.
- 9 Tokyo High Court, Hanrei Times, vol. 237, p. 300, « Nihon kinkai hôgei » case.
11The application of this condition was criticised by many legal experts and law professionals who feared the development of work conditions harmful to workers’ health7. In the 1960s, several judges challenged the refusal of certain applications for compensation by labour inspectors, basing their decisions on more flexible criteria than those in the circular. For example, in a ruling dated 28 June 1967, judges at Tokyo District Court recognised, concerning the death of a worker caused by a brain haemorrhage8, that the appearance of the cardiovascular and brain disorders were due to the workload and tasks carried out on a daily basis. The judges took into consideration the duration and nature of the task carried out to establish the causal link between the work and the worker’s death. On 12 February 1969, judges at the Tokyo High Court confirmed the decision by recognising that the long daily working hours and inherent mental fatigue were enough to prove the link between the work and the worker’s death9. With these two decisions, the judges circumvented the condition formulated in the circular.
- 10 Minshu vol. 29, no. 9, p.147.
- 11 C. Okamura, op. cit. p.145.
12On 24 October 1975, in a case concerning a medical dispute on the question of proving the causal link, the Supreme Court gave a judgment establishing a guideline on proof10. By deciding that the proof of a causal link in law was not necessarily scientific proof, the absence of doubt was no longer required. The causal link admissible could therefore rely on a high degree of probability. This precedent has also played a decisive role in karôshi-karôjisatsu11 cases.
- 12 « Monthly Labour Survey », published by the Ministry of Labour, 1987.
13At the time, the work done by doctors on the link between work and the occurrence of cardiovascular and brain disorders that could lead to the premature death of workers was still in its infancy. Furthermore, the Japanese, compared to the rest of the world, had some of the longest working hours12. Until the great « Work style reform » (Hatarakikata kaikaku) of
- 13 Article 36 of the Labour Standards Act (rôdô kijun hô) allows the employer to extend working hours (...)
14July 2018, labour laws did not place any specific and binding limits on overtime working13. In fact, Japanese institutions have above all produced social norms that are demanding on workers. The plaintiff’s lawyers in karôshi cases have challenged these social norms by demonstrating their deleterious effects on workers’ health. By overturning LSIO decisions, courts have gradually come to recognise the notions of overwork and accumulated fatigue.
15In 1987, the first revision of the administrative circular marked a major turning point in the process of recognising karôshi as an occupational illness. At around the same time, the government reformed working hours for the first time, by adopting the 40-hour week. Several actors in this emerging « anti-karôshi » movement played an important role alongside the court decisions.
II - Some sources of inspiration for judges
16Although in the 1960s, trade union organisations, doctors and lawyers organised to obtain recognition of cases of « sudden death at work” as occupational accidents and illnesses (A), from the 1980s onwards, the anti-karôshi movement was mainly characterised by recourse to the law and the courts (B). In the 1990s, karôjisatsu was added as an extension to the recognition of karôshi (C) thanks to collaboration between the members of the movement, in particular activist lawyers and psychiatrists, which led to the introduction of notions of « mental health at work » and « psycho-social risk factors » (D).
A - Overwork as the central notion in the recognition of « sudden death” at work
- 14 K. Nakajima, « The Kyoto Association for families of Karoshi Victims and the Kyoto Syokutairen Move (...)
- 15 K. Nakajima, « Development of Osaka Association for families of Karoshi Victims », Core Ethics, vol (...)
- 16 M. Hosokawa, S. Tajiri and T. Uehata, « ‘karoshi’ nou, shinzoukei shippei no gyoumujyou nintei to y (...)
- 17 W. Felstiner, R. L. Abel and A. Sarat, « The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blam (...)
17In the 1960s, the first mobilisations for the recognition of cases of « sudden death » at work came from a social movement for the recognition of occupational accidents and illnesses, in which trade union organisations, doctors and activist lawyers’ associations took part, among others14. For example, in Osaka, a workers› protection centre was set up in 1974, where several doctors worked, among them Shunichiro Tajiri who would actively participate in the campaign for the recognition of karôshi as an occupational illness15. In 1984, Tajiri published with two colleagues, including Tetsunojyo Uehata, one of the first books on « death by overwork » using the term « karôshi »16. In it the authors demonstrated the link between overwork and the appearance of cardiovascular disorders that can result in death. The media’s adoption of the term karôshi then gave the movement a new impetus17.
18The first liaison committee, initiated by Dr Tajiri in Osaka, rested on three foundations - the unions, the law and science - but it was mainly the recourse to the law and justice that characterised the anti-karôshi movement. The strategy of turning to the courts can be explained by the gap that persisted between this emerging doctrine, on the one hand, and the standards established by the administrative circulars, on the other. In 1982, this gap gave rise to the constitution of a first committee of experts, placed under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour, to debate the revision of the administrative circular. From 1984 onwards, statistics on the number of applications for recognition as occupational accidents/illnesses and the number of cases recognised as such were officially published. In October 1987, the Ministry of Labour widened the recognition criteria to add work done the week before the appearance of the first disorders. From then on, the decision to compensate depended on whether « the employee did, or did not, work excessively the week preceding the beginning of the appearance of the disorders ». This revision is significant insofar as it was a first step towards recognising death by overwork. However, fatigue accumulated over a period longer than this one week was not taken into account.
B - The judicialisation of karôshi
- 18 The ratio between the number of cases certified and applications for compensation was 3.1% in 1988, (...)
- 19 C. Okamuro, op. cit., p.166.
19Despite this revision, the number of cases recognised as occupational accidents/illnesses remained very low18. Legal decisions challenging refusals by the LSIO, however, did increase. Between the 1980s and the beginning of the 2000s, about a hundred court decisions - including seven handed down by the Supreme Court - contradicted the application of the recognition criteria by the labour authorities19.
- 20 Supreme Court judgment of 16 June 1994, Rôhan 651-13, « Kurashiki shiyakusho case»; Supreme Court j (...)
- 21 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25 April 1997, Rôhan 722-13.
- 22 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17 July 2000, Hanreijiho 1723-132, « Tokyokaijo case ».
- 23 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17 July 2001, Rôhan 786-14, « Osaka Awaji kôtsû case ».
20The Supreme Court ruled in a series of decisions on the causal link between work and cardiovascular and brain disorders20. In rulings dated 25 April 1997 (« Yotsudo denki kojiten case »)21 and 17 July 2000 (« Tokyokaijo case »)22, the judges did not examine whether the work done in the week preceding the appearance of the illness was, or was not, substantially excessive, but they did conclude that there was a reasonable causal link based on the accumulation of fatigue. Continuous stress was thus recognised as being the cause of the illness. The judges established this link on the basis of the « existence of an excessive mental and physical burden, due to the work done over more than a year by the worker, which aggravated the brain condition ». In the Osaka Awaji kôtsû case of 17 July 200123, the judges refuted the decision of the LSIO considering that the daily workload of the bus driver represented an overload of work for the victim given his state of health.
21Between 1995 and 2001, following these court rulings, the circular was amended on three occasions. In 1995, a new circular was published (Kihatsu no. 38, dated 1 February 1995), which said that the hours worked over the last week and more could be taken into account, subject to certain conditions. « Sudden death » was added into the 1996 circular (Kihatsu no. 30, dated 22 January 1996). Finally, the new circular, amended on 12 December 2001 (Kihatsu no. 1063), now took into account the long-term accumulation of fatigue (equivalent to or over 6 months). This new circular also recommended a ceiling on overtime hours, whose exceeding would lead to a presumption of a link between work and the appearance of brain and cardiovascular diseases. For example, if the employee has worked 100 hours of overtime for a month before the appearance of the disorders, there was now presumed to be a link between work and the illness. This revision caused a sharp increase in the number of cases recognised as occupational illnesses.
- 24 E. Kasagi, « Recognition of Mental Illness as an Occupational Disease by Analogy with Physical Illn (...)
22The progress made in terms of the recognition of karôshi as an occupational accident/illness results from the progressive taking into account of the risks linked to notions of overwork, stress and the accumulation of mental and physical fatigue. Multiple factors are involved in these risks, but the court decisions mainly blamed working conditions and, in particular, excessive working hours. From the 1990s onwards, karôjisatsu24 caused by excessive working hours and a high level of stress began to be recognised as an extension of karôshi.
C - The judicialisation of karôjisatsu
- 25 K. Nishimura, Syakaihosyouhou [Social Security Law], Yuhikaku, 2003, p. 360.
- 26 C. Okamura, op. cit., p. 379.
- 27 12 March 1999, Rôhan 765-43, « Affaire Ijima ».
- 28 Concerning civil liability, « Dentsu case », Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2000, Minshu, vol. (...)
23The issue of suicide raises a particular theoretical difficulty relating to the definition of the act itself. According to Article 12-2-2 of the IACI Act, intentional acts are excluded from the procedure for the seeking of compensation by the victim. The taking account of suicide was systematically refused, except in certain exceptional cases25. Nevertheless, refusals to grant compensation have been challenged in the courts26. The decision by the Nagano court of the first instance27 was one of the first examples of the overturning of a decision of the LSIO refusing to recognise a suicide as being the consequence of a work-related illness. At the same time, the judgments handed down in the « Dentsu »28 case in 1996, 1997 and 2000, found the employer civilly liable by establishing a causal link between its misconduct and an employee’s suicide.
- 29 Supreme Court ruling of 25 February 1975, Minshu vol. 29, no. 2, p. 143.
- 30 « Kawayoshi case », Supreme Court judgment of 10 April 1984, Minshu, vol. 38, no. 6, p. 557.
24To render their decisions, the judges drew on case law relating to the employer’s obligation of safety, namely the Supreme Court judgment of 25 February 197529 concerning the State’s obligation to protect the life and health of public service workers against any danger, completed by the Supreme Court judgment of 10 April 198430 ruling on the private sector employer’s obligation to insure the protection of the worker’s life and body against any danger in the accomplishment of their professional tasks. The employer’s obligation of safety is now codified as a contractual obligation under Article 5 of the Labour Contracts Act (rôdô keiyakuhô).
- 31 T. Amagasa, T. Nakayama and Y. Takahashi, « Karojisatsu in Japan: Characteristics of 22 Cases of Wo (...)
25In 1999, the Ministry of Labour published a new circular in which it was mentioned that suicide is not an intentional act when the cause of the act is the victim’s mental illness. In 2000, the Ministry brought out a new administrative circular on the conditions for classifying psychological disorders as occupational illnesses, to establish a presumption that there is a causal link between the illness and work. To assess the existence of a « very heavy mental burden weighing on the employee » several events and factors were identified and listed. For example, a period of particularly long working hours is taken into account as a « particular event » when the employee has worked more than 160 hours overtime per month31.
D - Judges’ sources of inspiration in karôjisatsu cases
- 32 J. Kitanaka, De la mort volontaire au suicide au travail, Ithaque, 2015.
- 33 T. Fujimoto, « Nihongata Kigyō no Byōri to Seinen no Shi: Dentsū Jisatsu Kaōshi Jiken », Kikan (...)
26In the « Dentsu » case, the lawyers were inspired by the arguments of social psychiatry and the theory of the social aetiology of suicide32. If, initially, the amount of overtime hours worked allows the existence of a situation of overwork to be recognised (as in karôshi cases), it is then necessary to prove the link between the excessive amount of stress and the triggering of the mental illness. The psychiatric theories that could establish such a mechanism did not exist in Japan33. The lawyers therefore relied on the opinion of a specialist - Tsuguo Kaneko - who was himself inspired by the work of a psychiatrist of German origin - Peter Kielhoz - to demonstrate that the victim was suffering from « depression due to exhaustion » caused by chronic and long-established fatigue, lack of sleep and stress at work. The judges thus recognised the accidental suicidal impulse, influenced by the victim’s depressive state which affected their thinking.
27With this decision, the judges reminded employers that they have a duty to prevent the accumulation of their employees’ stress beyond a reasonable limit and to protect their mental health in their workplace. The collaboration between those involved in the anti-karôshi movement, in particular the activist lawyers and the psychiatrists, led to a change in the two areas of law and social psychiatry, by introducing the notions of « mental health at work » and « psycho-social risk factors». The legislative and political translation of these advances gave rise, in 2006, to the application of a suicide prevention policy that considers it as a social phenomenon, and then, in 2014, to the adoption of the Karôshi Prevention Act, which goes beyond an approach centred on individual situations to establish a prevention policy on a collective scale.
28In France, the link between court decisions and changes in the organisation of work is illustrated by the case of the suicides at France Télécom, which cast light on the issue of so-called institutionalised harassment.
III - The France Télécom case and institutional harassment
29Recent court decisions in France have pointed the finger at the organisation of work and management as major psycho-social risk factors liable to generate professional stress that results in suicide.
- 34 TGI Paris, 31st Ch., 2nd sect., 20 December 2019, no. 09357090257.
- 35 S. Garcia and D. Riera, « Les enseignements de l’affaire des suicides au sein de France Télécom », (...)
30The Paris Regional Court, on 20 December 201934, recognised institutional harassment resulting from the company’s management policies. In the words of the judgment: « The charge of harassment in the workplace as it applied at the time of the events (…) allows for (…) the punishment of harassment at work referred to as institutional harassment, based on a corporate policy essentially aimed at a collective group of staff ». The judgment highlights three cumulative conditions: the implementation of a structured policy, actions that contributed to deteriorating working conditions, even if these actions were involuntary, and, finally, the fact that their implementation exceeds the limits of management powers35.
- 36 Soc. 10 November 2009, no. 07-45.321, Dr. Soc., 2010, 109, obs. Ch. Radé.
- 37 AJ pénal 2020, 136, obs. D. Viriot-Barrial
- 38 L. Lerouge, Approche interdisciplinaire des risques psychosociaux au travail, Octares, 2014.
- 39 « Suicides liés au travail », Les Cahier du DRH, no. 181, November 2011.
31Although this ruling is in keeping with the recognition of managerial harassment by case previous case law, namely the Court of Cassation ruling of 10 November 200936 - the case law has remained constant since that date - it is nevertheless novel in its recognition of the notion of « institutional or organisational harassment »37. The cause is not dependent only on a pathogenic mode of management of the company’s staff, but more widely on its organisation and overall policy38. The liability of its top management is, furthermore, recognised by criminal law39.
- 40 C. Delmas, « Mobilisation syndicale et expertise en matière de risques psychosociaux : L’Observatoi (...)
32The overall French approach to the organisation of work and managerial practices in the corporate world contrasts with the processual Japanese approach on the criteria and conditions for establishing the causal link between work and suicide. In the France Télécom case, the high number of suicides and the mobilisation of the trade unions in support of the victims allowed a collective case to be brought against the management to challenge the work organisation40. The formation of a union movement in France is in contrast to the individual process analysed in the karôshi and karôjisatsu cases in Japan. There was no wave of suicides at Dentsu, and although the company was ordered to compensate the victim’s dependents, this decision was followed by a change in the administrative circular, but without giving rise to a wider union movement. There are several explanations for this difficult generalisation, the analysis of which goes beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, the impact of court decisions on the organisation of work is reduced by the union’s having greater difficulty in playing a role as institutional intermediaries.
33In Japan, the individualisation of the cases and the trade union organisations’ withdrawal from the anti-karôshi struggle at the end of the 1980s, transformed the nature of the mobilisations into a struggle by the law and for the law.
34The organisation of the movement by Japanese lawyers, relying on court decisions, led to far-reaching changes in the law, notably labour law. A change from the individual sphere to the institutional sphere is therefore observed: firstly, the individual cases gave rise, via the taking of legal action, to case law recognising the notions of psycho-social risks and mental health at work; the lawmakers introduced a karôshi prevention policy; and, finally, the core feature in the social contract - working hours - was challenged by the 2018 reform, all of this together leading to a progressive change in the social norms and moral values associated with work, through a rebalancing of rights and obligations between employee and employer.
Notes
1 A. Sala and E. Kasagi, « La mobilisation du droit et le recours aux contentieux dans les cas de mort et de suicide par surmenage au Japon : du cause lawyering à la judiciarisation du karôshi-karôjisatu? », Droit et Société, no. 109, 2021, forthcoming.
2 This great reform of the labour laws took place as part of the policy on « work style reform » (hatarakikata kaikaku). It introduced, in Article 36, a historical first upper limit on overtime, set at 100 hours per month and 720 hours a year (in exceptional circumstances and for a period of no more than 6 months a year), or 80 hours a month on average. Outside of exceptional circumstances, the limit is set at 45 hours a month and 360 hours a year.
3 See C. Okamura, Karoshi- Karojisatsu kyusai no riron to jitsumu, Syunpousya, 2002.
4 E. Kasagi, « La notion de maladies professionnelles et son évolution en droit de la sécurité sociale japonais », Droit Social, 2020, no. 12, p. 1020.
5 In French law, the recognition of industrial accidents and occupational illnesses, as a rule, excludes recourse to ordinary law on liability, except in the case of deliberate tortious intent on the part of the employer (CSS, Art. L. 451-1, Art. L. 452-5). In the event of inexcusable conduct on the part of the employer, the victim may obtain more comprehensive compensation, which will be paid by the Social Security, but then claimed back from the employer (Art. L. 451-1, Art. L. 452-1 s.).
6 E. Kasagi, op.cit.
7 C. Okamura, op.cit.
8 Tokyo District Court, Rominshu 18-3, p. 686, « Nihon kinkai hôgei » case.
9 Tokyo High Court, Hanrei Times, vol. 237, p. 300, « Nihon kinkai hôgei » case.
10 Minshu vol. 29, no. 9, p.147.
11 C. Okamura, op. cit. p.145.
12 « Monthly Labour Survey », published by the Ministry of Labour, 1987.
13 Article 36 of the Labour Standards Act (rôdô kijun hô) allows the employer to extend working hours by signing a written agreement with a trade union - or one or more workers - representing the majority of the workers. This collective agreement allows overtime hours to be imposed on the workers concerned, virtually without limit. See A. Sala and E. Kasagi op. cit.
14 K. Nakajima, « The Kyoto Association for families of Karoshi Victims and the Kyoto Syokutairen Movement », Core Ethics, vol. 10, 2014 (in Japanese).
15 K. Nakajima, « Development of Osaka Association for families of Karoshi Victims », Core Ethics, vol. 13, 2017 (in Japanese).
16 M. Hosokawa, S. Tajiri and T. Uehata, « ‘karoshi’ nou, shinzoukei shippei no gyoumujyou nintei to yobou », Roudoukeizaisha, 1984, p. 11.
17 W. Felstiner, R. L. Abel and A. Sarat, « The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming... », Law and Society Review, 1980.
18 The ratio between the number of cases certified and applications for compensation was 3.1% in 1988, then 10% after the change of circular in 1995, and it reached 20.7% following the new circular of 2001. See T. Kato, « The Political Economy of Japanese ‘Karoshi’ », Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, December 1994.
19 C. Okamuro, op. cit., p.166.
20 Supreme Court judgment of 16 June 1994, Rôhan 651-13, « Kurashiki shiyakusho case»; Supreme Court judgment of 5 March 1996, Rôhan 689-16, « zuihô shogakko case».
21 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25 April 1997, Rôhan 722-13.
22 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17 July 2000, Hanreijiho 1723-132, « Tokyokaijo case ».
23 Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17 July 2001, Rôhan 786-14, « Osaka Awaji kôtsû case ».
24 E. Kasagi, « Recognition of Mental Illness as an Occupational Disease by Analogy with Physical Illness: Comparative Analyses with French Law », in L. Lerouge (eds), Psychosocial Risks in Labour and Social Security Law, 2017.
25 K. Nishimura, Syakaihosyouhou [Social Security Law], Yuhikaku, 2003, p. 360.
26 C. Okamura, op. cit., p. 379.
27 12 March 1999, Rôhan 765-43, « Affaire Ijima ».
28 Concerning civil liability, « Dentsu case », Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2000, Minshu, vol. 54, no. 3, p. 1155.
29 Supreme Court ruling of 25 February 1975, Minshu vol. 29, no. 2, p. 143.
30 « Kawayoshi case », Supreme Court judgment of 10 April 1984, Minshu, vol. 38, no. 6, p. 557.
31 T. Amagasa, T. Nakayama and Y. Takahashi, « Karojisatsu in Japan: Characteristics of 22 Cases of Work-Related Suicide », Journal of Occupational Health, 47, 2, 2005, p. 157.
32 J. Kitanaka, De la mort volontaire au suicide au travail, Ithaque, 2015.
33 T. Fujimoto, « Nihongata Kigyō no Byōri to Seinen no Shi: Dentsū Jisatsu Kaōshi Jiken », Kikan Rōdōsha no Kenri, 1997, p. 158.
34 TGI Paris, 31st Ch., 2nd sect., 20 December 2019, no. 09357090257.
35 S. Garcia and D. Riera, « Les enseignements de l’affaire des suicides au sein de France Télécom », Village de la justice, 26 February 2020.
36 Soc. 10 November 2009, no. 07-45.321, Dr. Soc., 2010, 109, obs. Ch. Radé.
37 AJ pénal 2020, 136, obs. D. Viriot-Barrial
38 L. Lerouge, Approche interdisciplinaire des risques psychosociaux au travail, Octares, 2014.
39 « Suicides liés au travail », Les Cahier du DRH, no. 181, November 2011.
40 C. Delmas, « Mobilisation syndicale et expertise en matière de risques psychosociaux : L’Observatoire du stress et des mobilités forcées à France Télécom », La Revue de l’Ires, 3(3), 2012, p.153.
Haut de pagePour citer cet article
Référence papier
Adrienne Sala, « The creativity of the judge faced with new health-at-work problems: the Japanese case of karôshi and karôjisatsu », Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale, 4 | 2021, 160-169.
Référence électronique
Adrienne Sala, « The creativity of the judge faced with new health-at-work problems: the Japanese case of karôshi and karôjisatsu », Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale [En ligne], 4 | 2021, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2022, consulté le 18 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rdctss/2695 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.2695
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Haut de page