On October 21, CGS and The Job Counselling Centre jointly hosted a talk program: 'Women Who Refused to Give in to Public Order and Morality'. The speakers were Ms Katsumi Nishimura, one of the plaintiffs in the gender pay discrimination case against Sumitomo Denkō (Sumitomo Electric Industries), and Ms Mitsuko Miyachi who headed the counsel for the plaintiff. It was literally about the women who stood up to, and won against, the so-called 'public consensus'.
On October 21, CGS and The Job Counselling Centre jointly hosted a talk program: 'Women Who Refused to Give in to Public Order and Morality'. The speakers were Ms Katsumi Nishimura, one of the plaintiffs in the gender pay discrimination case against Sumitomo Denkō (Sumitomo Electric Industries), and Ms Mitsuko Miyachi who headed the counsel for the plaintiff. It was literally about the women who stood up to, and won against, the so-called 'public consensus'.
Ms Nishimura and her fellow plaintiffs are women who were employed as so-called 'clerical' staff in the 1960's. At that time, staff for 'clerical' work were mainly recruited from female and non-graduate male applicants. These two groups shared the same entrance, but not the subsequent paths, in the corporate structure. The female employees could only stand by and watch as their male counterparts were given opportunities for promotion to 'comprehensive work' in the form of a qualification exam, while they themselves were categorically excluded from this scheme. The result was a significant pay deficit for female employees that amounted to a maximum of \200,000 a month. Ms Nishimura and her group found this practice questionable and in need of reform. They first sought assistance from the union. However, union policy shared a similarly gendered view with the management, such as regarding female employees as 'maiden charges entrusted to us by their parents until the time of their matrimony'. Consequently, they failed to recognize the importance of the issue. At the time, the failure in gaining the union'ssupport seemed to extinguish any hope for further action.
Despite this initial disappointment, they refused to give up their efforts. In 1994, when CEDAW, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, was reviewing a report compiled by the Japanese government, Ms Nishihara's group decided to go to the U.N. and present their case as an example of the general inequity existing in Japanese society. This move, and the public appeal they made for their case in front of the Japanese media beforehand, marked a significant step in their subsequent activities.
On returning to Japan, they filed for a mediation to the then Department for Women and Young Persons at the Ministry of Labour, in accordance with the Equal Employment Act. However, their application was rejected. Under the Equal Employment Act of 1986, unequal treatment in education and training, welfare, retirement, and redundancy were clearly prohibited. On the other hand, the realization of equality in the handling of job applications and recruitment, placement, and promotion was obligatory and not under prohibitive regulation. At any rate, chances for a mediation process would have been slim, as the management had the right to veto any mediation process that was possibly damaging to them. In fact, in most cases applications for mediation from employees were rejected by the companies.
These failings made Ms Nishimura and her group take their case to court. In August 1995, they formed the Working Women's Network and filed a complaint. Although their case against the 'public order and morality' lost heavily initially, in the second run, they achieved a historical concession from Sumitomo Denkō that included not only a redress on the pay deficit but also on promotional inequity.
One insight to be gleaned from the tremendous efforts of Ms Nishihara and her colleagues: the importance for each of us to have a clear idea of what it means to work, and questioning the compatibility of that idea with the fulfilment of one's life as a whole. In the job-seeking process, visits by OB and OGs or attending job conferences are of course important; as is meeting targets set by the management in work. Yet, there also exist other realities: the plaintiffs of the Sumitomo Denkō Case were not initially aware of the presence of gender inequity in the pay system - it was when they started working that they were actually faced with the realities of it in their daily life.
Another insight is the importance of 'awareness'. The prevailing discourse in present work practices may be apparent for a person with an unimpeded sight. There are inequities in the pay system, long service hours, and the non-permanent employment scheme; it would be dangerous to consider the existing system as 'accepted' without giving them the benefit of re-examination. Business or public 'ethics' are not necessarily in compliance with more private political or philosophical ethics and judgement may be biased according to sexist or racial prejudices which harbour beneath the seemingly benign exterior of 'common sense'. Only the awareness can open one's eye to form an accurate assessment of reality, with which one could hope to start a discussion for the betterment of the society.
Perseverance is the ultimate factor that brought Ms Nishimura and her group a victory. With supports from people around them, they refused to give in to the trials of fighting against the odds when faced with the huge presence of social and managerial 'common sense'.
At the time of this talk program, I had been personally going through a similar situation with the management at my part-time job. The issue took six months to resolve, although we managed to avoid resorting to the law. It was a lengthy and taxing process for a lone part-time worker like me, who did not have the support of their union nor any companion in the struggle. Ms Nishihara's story gave me the courage to keep on, and that finally enabled me to draw an agreement from the management to reflect my viewpoint on the application of regulations.
The Sumitomo Denkō Case achieved a historical concession. Direct discrimination is now prohibited by the law. Yet, there are still more issues regarding working conditions for women that require attention. Ms Nishimura and Ms Miyachi are raising their voices for the inclusion of a clear statement against indirect discrimination in the revision of the Equal Employment Act. Undoubtedly, this is an issue that everyone should be aware of as it materially affects not only regular workers but also part-time workers like me, or students looking for work.
In aiming to achieve a 'better' society, we must all continue to question the so-called 'common sense' of 'public order and morality'.
Tatsunori TAGUCHI, Law School, Kokugakuin University