## Facts

- Shioda was employed as an announcer by Kochi Broadcasting Company, a regional broadcaster.
- Shioda worked an overnight shift that ran roughly from evening into the next morning (about 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.).
- During that shift, Shioda took a nap and overslept, missing a scheduled early-morning news broadcast (reported in English summaries as a 6:20 a.m. broadcast).
- A reporter working the same shift did not wake Shioda in time for the broadcast.
- A few weeks later, while again assigned to an overnight shift, Shioda overslept a second time and missed another early-morning broadcast.
- Again, the reporter on duty did not wake Shioda.
- Shioda had not previously caused similar broadcast incidents.
- After the second incident, Shioda did not report the problem to his manager on his own initiative.
- When management learned of the incident, Shioda was asked to submit an incident report; he did so but included false information.
- Shioda later apologized for what occurred.
- Kochi’s managers decided to terminate Shioda. They used the company’s “ordinary dismissal” route (rather than disciplinary dismissal), stating they wanted to reduce the adverse effect on Shioda’s future job prospects, and they cited a general work-rules provision used as a catch-all basis for ordinary dismissal.
- Shioda sued for a declaration that the dismissal was invalid and for confirmation of continued employee status. The lower courts ruled for Shioda, and Kochi appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan.

## Issues

1. Where an employee’s conduct could be treated as disciplinary misconduct, may the employer instead proceed under an “ordinary dismissal” provision in the work rules?
2. Even if an employer can point to a work-rules ground for ordinary dismissal, may the dismissal still be void as an abuse of the right to dismiss?
3. On these facts (two oversleeping broadcast failures, failure to report promptly, and a false incident report), was termination extremely unreasonable and not acceptable under social norms?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed Kochi Broadcasting’s final appeal, leaving in place the judgments that invalidated the dismissal.
- The Court accepted that Shioda’s conduct could fall within an ordinary-dismissal ground stated in the work rules.
- The Court held, however, that an employer is not always permitted to dismiss merely because a stated ground exists in the work rules.
- The Court stated that a dismissal is invalid as an abuse of the right to dismiss when, in the concrete circumstances, treating the employee by dismissal is extremely unreasonable and cannot be approved as appropriate under social norms.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded that the lower courts could properly find the dismissal invalid, given the overall circumstances surrounding the incidents and Kochi’s response.

## Legal Principles

- A rules-based “ordinary dismissal” ground does not make termination automatically valid; dismissal is limited by an abuse-of-right control.
- Even where an ordinary dismissal ground exists, a dismissal is void if, considering the specific circumstances, it is extremely unreasonable and cannot be accepted as appropriate under social norms.
- In applying the abuse-of-right control, courts evaluate the total circumstances, including the employee’s degree of fault, any shared responsibility or workplace conditions that contributed to the incident, the employee’s prior record, the harm caused, post-incident conduct (including reporting and candor), and proportionality between the misconduct and the sanction.
- An employer’s choice to label the termination as “ordinary dismissal” (including for reputational reasons) does not remove the court’s ability to review whether dismissal itself is excessively harsh in context.

## Conclusion

Shioda v. Kochi Broadcasting Co. confirms that, in Japan, an employer’s reliance on an ordinary-dismissal clause is not enough to sustain a termination: even if the employee’s conduct fits a stated ground, the dismissal is invalid when, after weighing all circumstances, firing is extremely unreasonable and cannot be accepted as appropriate under social norms.


Shioda v. Kochi Broadcasting Co., 268 Rodo Hanrei 17 (1977)