Mizuho Bank ordered to pay compensation for “unimaginable and unusual circumstances”; 4.5 years of self-isolation at home deemed “illegal recommendation to retire”; disciplinary dismissal of former bank employee valid… Tokyo District Court – Bengo4.com

April 24, 2024 17:30

A man who worked at Mizuho Bank filed a lawsuit against the bank, claiming that his disciplinary dismissal after being ordered to stay at home for about five years was illegal, and seeking annulment of his dismissal and compensation. In a ruling on April 24, the Tokyo District Court (presiding judge Kotaro Suga) ordered him to pay 3.3 million yen, arguing that the long period of self-quarantine constituted an illegal recommendation to retire.

However, it judged that the disciplinary dismissal was valid, and denied the request for status confirmation and wages. The man says he plans to appeal this point.

●“An unusual situation that is difficult to imagine”

According to the ruling, the man entered the school halfway in 2007. Around 2016, he started being asked to resign in an interview, and in April of the same year he was ordered to stay at home. After that, there were multiple interviews regarding his resignation, and the man developed a mental disorder.

Around 2020, Mizuho started asking me about my intention to continue working and ordered me to come to work, but when I didn’t respond, I received disciplinary action twice, and since I still didn’t respond, I started working in 2021. He was fired in May.

The Tokyo District Court found that the man’s failure to respond to Mizuho’s confirmation of his intention to continue working constituted a violation of work orders and absenteeism. The man countered that he was unable to contact him because he was seeking a formal apology, but Mizuho dismissed the request, saying that Mizuho was responding appropriately.

Based on this, it was determined that the dismissal was valid, as Mizuho had taken steps to provide the employee with opportunities for improvement prior to the disciplinary dismissal.

On the other hand, he pointed out that having to stay at home for a long period of time is an “abnormal situation that is difficult to imagine under normal circumstances.” In October 2016, the company should have shown the company where to return to work, but it was deemed to be an “illegal recommendation to retire that exceeded the limits that are socially acceptable.” did.

There was a dispute over the end of his stay at home, with the man claiming that it was more than five years from April 2016 until he was fired, but the court ruled that it was approximately four and a half years until Mizuho ordered him to come to work in October 2021. Certified.