STATEMENTS OF KOKURO MEMBERS (9) -Extra-
- At Court on "27/May Suppression" at KOKURO Provisional Conference
- Fighting Against "Violent Actions Punishment Act" Oppression on Trade Union
OPENING STATEMENT by Akio SATO
TRIAL SCHEDULE OF THE CASE ON 2003
====================================================
OPENING STATEMENT by Akio SATO
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akio SATO is a barrister and leader of the defence in this case. He gave
a statement at the 3rd court, 3 March 2003.
====================================================
Table of contents:
1. This case is criminal oppression on rightful trade union activities
2. The defendants are all not guilty
- (1) Execution of workers' right to organize union
- (2) Resist to unfair labour practice by the state
- (3) Protest against Obedience course
- (4) Made-up fact and intervention
3. Criminal oppression supporting unfair lab our practice is unpardonable
- (1) Trial oppressing the opponents of Four Parties Agreement
- (2) Case progress flavoured with preconception and bias
<1, 2 & 3>
- (3) We demand fair and open trial based on the Constitution
and conscience
====================================================
At first, let me outline the basic features of this case.
----------------------------------------------------
....1. This case is criminal oppression on leafleting and convincing activities
by members of Kokuro union, and also breach of the Article 28 of the Japanese
Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------
Seven out of the 8 defendants in this case are workers who have loved railway,
been proud of working there, and kept working properly for years. The last one
of the defendants is a supporter who has had sympathy to these workers' fighting
against union discriminations. All of the 8 defendants claimed in their opinion
statements that they are not guilty and their actions were fair and right as
Kokuro union members or struggle supporter.
That is to say, the 7 accused Kokuro members have been treated discriminately
at the time of Japan National Railway (JNR)'s Division and Privatization (D&P)
by JNR and ever afterward by the new JR companies, just because they are the
Kokuro union members. They have suffered but did not stop fighting. They have
been faithful to the course of action proposed by Kokuro for years. Kokuro Head
Office, however, accepted the "Four Parties' Agreement", and threw away their
course: Stop Discrimination! At the day of this court case argues, the Head
Office held the provisional conference which was demanded by the ruling Liberal
Democratic Party, and aimed to expel the opponent members.
The defendants were somehow trying to stop such deterioration of Kokuro union
and to call on the conscience of the members of Head Office faction (who are
for the "Four Parties' Agreement") in order to defend the basics of union movement:
Don't let them unjustly sack even one single worker! The prosecution of this
case which regarded these workers' action as crime is an obvious political oppression
in order to intervene autonomy of union in Kokuro union, and to make a crack
inside of opponent members.
We, the barristers in charge of defence for this case, claim firmly that the
fact is just as stated by defendants, and all of the accused are not guilty.
They have exercised the right of workers to form union which is enshrined by
the Japanese Constitution. They opposed the intervention in their union by the
government, and devoted themselves to form the appropriate course of action
which they believe in. Their action should not be regarded as crime. This case
is a political suppression on autonomous trade union movement.
It is rather government who should be judged because of their attempt to breakdown
Kokuro union through the JNR Division & Privatization. Four parties are also
to blame for insisting the old JNR and the new JR companies are different and
threatened Kokuro to say "we accept the idea that JR companies have no responsibility
for JNR's unfair labour practice", even though Kokuro is the victim themselves
of this unfair labour practice, and even after Labour Relations Commission convicted
their action as unfair labour practice, and even after the ILO pointed out that
the protection of forming union right should be applied at the time of privatization.
The Special Branch of the metropolitan police department is also to be blamed
for taking part of this matter and arrested the defendants, and so as the prosecutors
who detained the accused and even charged them. It is also Kokuro Head Office
who should be accused. After the collapse of the Four Parties' Agreement (3
parties who consist ruling coalition government left the agreement on 6 December
2002), they did not account for their failed course, but spoiled the autonomous
unity and asked police to intervene just for their own profit.
Return to the top of this page
----------------------------------------------------
....2. The defendants are all not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------
..... (1) Execution of workers' right to organize union
This case is the execution of the Article 28 of the Constitution (which enshrines
the right of workers to organize union) in the progress of "JNR fight" and "1047
Workers' Struggle" which has been fought against employment discrimination and
"the unfair labour practice by the state" aiming to decompose Kokuro into "company
union" since JNR's Division & Privatization. There has not been "criminal act"
from the first. The good comparison is surgical operations by surgeons, which
is ensured by the article 35 of Penal Law, and not regarded as injury case or
crime. It is the same thing for the execution of organizing union right by workers.
It should not be treated as crime or something like that. The prosecutor sees
this as crime and treats this as criminal case, but it is nothing but their
power abuse. They just want to make resisting members of Kokuro to give up their
fight and surrender. This is a political oppression and breach of the Article
28 of the Constitution.
Civil servants, especially judges, are obliged to esteem the Constitution and
protect it (which is written on the Constitution, its Article 99 and Section
3 of Article 76). We, the defence, plead dismissal of this presentment. If the
trial is held, despite of our plea, all the accused must be ruled as not guilty.
..... (2) Resist to unfair labour practice by the state
JNR's Division & Privatization in 1987 which was the opening of this problem
was done under the cloak of dealing with its huge deficit. But in reality, the
principal reason for the debt was the huge infrastructure investment like constructing
Shinkansen, the bullet train, which was done not with government's share, but
with the form of JNR's financial or investment debt, even though JNR was public
company with 100% government investment. The interest payment for this debt
drove JNR to the "living hell". This is quite obvious in the fact: Even after
the "Settlement Corporation" of JNR sold its vast lands including the site of
Shiodome station, and sold its stock shares of JR-East, West and Tokai, and
repaid, its debt ended up to increase (from 25.6 trillion yen to 28.3) when
the Settlement Corporation finished its task and disbanded in 1998.
The government, however, concealed this real reason, sold the state's own property
arbitrarily through its privatization, and expelled 100,000 JNR workers from
their railway jobs while called them as redundant workers. Plus, they aimed
to use this occasion of cutting redundancy for crushing Kokuro which was the
core of Sohyo, the national centre of trade unions at the time, and annihilating
the traditional trade union movement which fight against authority and capitals.
Yasuhiro NAKASONE, the prime minister of Japan at the time of JNR's D&P, shamelessly
told their political aim for the D&P later that: "Kokuro's collapse triggers
Sohyo's collapse. I knew that and I did that (D&P)" (Monthly magazine "AERA",
issued on 30 December 1996)
Kokuro, Zendoro and Doro-Chiba opposed JNR's Division & Privatization and claimed
it violated the right of nation for traffic, and it deprived workers' jobs.
JNR authority made a threat and said that if workers remain in those trade union,
they would lose their jobs and could be rehired by the new JR companies. Those
who refused the secession from the union were actually expelled from the railway
job and sent into the concentration camp which name was "Human Resource Utilization
Centre", and then sent into "JNR Settlement Corporation". Kokuro union pled
the salvation from the unjust labour practice at Labour Relations Commission
(LRC) to fight against intervention in the union and employment discrimination.
They have got salvation decrees by the 18 Regional LRCs all over the nation
and the Central LRC. Decree of the LRC is administrative procedure and employers
have to obey it. This is not just written on the Trade Union Act, but also confirmed
by the written rejoinder by Jun'ichiro KOIZUMI, the prime minister of Japan,
to answering the question by Etsuko Kawada, Japan's Diet member on 6 December
2002: "Employers who got the salvation decree are bound by the administrative
duty to fulfil the order even before the decree is determined." The JR companies,
however, pled the withdrawal of the mandate while they left the decree unexecuted.
After District Court and High Court have accepted their plea, and after the
Central LRC appealed, the case is now treated at the Supreme Court (Kokuro has
joined this with an assistant status.)
The fighting 1047 workers of Kokuro, Zendoro and Doro-Chiba unions among the
workers who were rejected by the JR companies and sent into the Settlement Corporation,
were sacked again on April 2002, this time by Settlement Corporation, and lost
their incomes. More than 10 years since then, these workers, together with their
family members, have had to suffer the financial difficulty and the slander
insisting that they were sacked because they are lazy. They are fighting for
restoration from unfair labour practice and return to their original workplace.
After the D&P, continual policy of crushing the union is called as "unfair labour
practice by the State" because it is the government, who initiates, takes part,
impregnate and overlook this unfair practice, and the fight against this unfairness
is called as "1047 workers' fight".
..... (3) Protest against Obedience course and betrayal course by accepting
"Four Parties Agreement" and "Three Parties Declaration"
"The Operation JNR D&P", the deliberate attack on workers by the government,
extinguished Sohyo as the then Prime Minister Nakasone aimed at. Kokuro has
suffered from this operation D&P, but they have still survived and played the
important role in the heart of 1047 workers struggle. Under these circumstances,
Kokuro asked "political solution", when 3 parties including Liberal Democratic
Party plus Social Democratic Party proposed the Four Parties' Agreement in order
to crush the 1047-struggle and to complete their unfair labour practice. The
Agreement asked Kokuro to hold provisional conference. It set the 4 parties'
talk about reconciliation money, only after Kokuro's acceptance of "no legal
responsibility for JR companies". This means, it has asked the victim of the
unfair labour practice to say that there was no unfair treatment. It has overlooked
the employers' non-performance to the decree of LRCs. It has even asked Kokuro
to drop the case at the Supreme Court appealed by Central LRC. Its aim is to
destroy the very system which has not allowed them so far to do unfair labour
practice, and to submit Kokuro to D&P establishment with some carrots. And the
Head Office of Kokuro accepted it, and started to finish the struggle, to abandon
it. They, however, could not convince, quite naturally the fighting body members
who have devoted their lives into the fight, and their family. It ended up leaving
grate collision and split between Kokuro union and its supporters.
This process was followed by the ruling "Three Parties' Declaration" on 26 April
2002. This Declaration threatened and said that if Kokuro Head Office did not
withdraw their lawsuit and did not expel its opponent members who made own lawsuits,
the ruling parties would breach the Four Parties' Agreement. Its aim was a complete
disorganization of Kokuro, and Kokuro Head Office tried to make a decision asked
by the Declaration at the provisional conference on 27 May 2002. It inevitably
provoked the protest, opposition, dispute against it and convincing activity
inside the union. All of those reactions were natural and rightful reaction
as trade unionists, and were quite cogent as the protection movement for the
workers' right to form union against unfair labour practice by the state.
..... (4) Made-up fact and intervention in the making decision process of
Kokuro's course by the authority
The prosecution has claimed that the accused formed complicity to inhibit the
69th provisional national conference of Japan National Railway Trade Union (Kokuro)
and made an assault with a large number of people upon members of Kokuro who
were about to get on the bus to go to the conference hall.
But the true fact was completely different from this description. In the midst
of above mentioned argument on the movement course of the union, Kokuro Head
Office aimed to cut off the fighting body formed by its members in obedience
to Four Parties' Agreement including ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the
Three Parties' Declaration stated by the parties in the ruling coalition government.
Kokuro Head Office asked riot police to come and surround the conference hall
to suffocate the opposition. It was the total deviation from the trade union
movement, but the Head Office tried to force its conference under that extraordinary
circumstances. Anger against this was swirling among many Kokuro members, members
of the Fighting Body and the supporters. These opponent union members protested
the opening of this conference, condemned the members of Head Office faction,
appealed their opposition and remonstrance to the attempt of cutting of the
Fighting Body, and made argues and convincing activities. This is the fact.
It was the execution of basic right of trade union members, say, rank and file
and the sovereign of trade union, to join in the process of making union decision.
The aim of their action was right and the form of activity was not hazardous.
Convincing fellow members in the same union at the time of conflict is a part
of the execution of the workers' forming union right. If the prosecutor regard
their action as "violence to interrupt the conference", it means that they see
union activity itself as illegal, try to deny the Article 28 of the Constitution
which enshrines the workers' right to form union, and the Section 2 at Article
1 of the Trade Union Act which enshrines the workers' forming union right sharply
and explicitly.
Return to the top of this page
----------------------------------------------------
....3. Criminal oppression supporting unfair lab our practice is unpardonable
----------------------------------------------------
..... (1) This is the trial which oppresses the opponents of Four Parties
Agreement, and aims at making split inside the 1047 struggle
The Constitution does not allow the state to intervene to the workers' union
forming right. The police, however, arrested 2 Kokuro members who are also members
of Fighting Body, 3 JR workers, and 3 workers who supports the struggle, on
7 October, nearly a half year later the provisional conference on May. It was
the day of election notice for Kokuro regular conference delegates. Some of
the accused were preparing to announce their candidacies for the posts. The
police arrested 2 more union members (JR workers) on 29 October, and charged
8 of 10 with violation of Violence and Other Actions Punishment Act.
On the detention note, all the suspects are described as activists of "Chukaku"
(Japan Revolutionary Communist League, National Committee) who formed complicity
to interrupt Kokuro union conference and used force to do that. At the time
of detention reason disclosure, a judge in charge uttered that he did not know
the suspects were Kokuro union members. This case should have been solved within
union autonomy because this conflict has occurred in the process of decision
making for the course of Kokuro union. Nevertheless, the police described the
case as if unrelated political "extremists" were about to crush the union conference
with the violence. This means that they obstructed free and independent decision
making of the union conference through political oppression on the opponents
of Four Parties' Agreement. Thus, this case is nothing but the political suppression.
..... (2) Case progress flavoured with preconception and bias
......<1> Long-time detention and prohibition of visiting to see
The defendants have been in custody already for a long time. The reason prosecutors
rejected our demand for bail was: "The suspect is quite likely to conceal or
destroy the evidence (There is enough reason to doubt that the suspect could
conceal or destroy the evidence)". What the defendants of this case have done,
however, was public protest and convincing activity on the public street at
the time of the union conference. The accused, furthermore, are sure of the
justice of their actions, indignant against the oppression on them, and thinking
to disclose this case to the people widely ever using any chances including
this very court. This is quite obvious in their opinion statements, and there
is no way the "possibility of concealing or destroying of evidence".
Moreover, the defendants got arrested nearly half a year after their "crime".
What kind of "evidence" could they conceal or destroy now? If there was the
fact of crime, and if they really wanted to conceal the evidence, the only logical
conclusion is that they must have finished the "work" before the arrest. There
is no rational ground which can deny this assumption.
Besides, suspected fact, if it was correct, deserves just minor offence. Yet,
still now, the prosecutors have kept them in custodies and denying their families
and friends to visit and see them, while the police have tried to make them
accept the "picture" police drew. Detectives in charge have sometimes talked
to the accused how their families are suffering because of their detention (Originally,
it is the direct result of the "abduction and confinement" by the authority),
and sometimes said if the accused accept everything police say, they can get
lighter sentence.
Even though some of the accused demanded to go appearing for Labour Relations
Commission as witness, their asking was turned down. Even when one of the accused
demanded suspension of detention when his step-father was critical condition,
his hope was rejected. His step-father died later and he was not allowed to
join the funeral. The aim of these inhuman treatments is clear. The police officers
in charge try to wrong them by a false charge, and the court followed the police
just one step afterward. Their violation of human rights must be accused and
stopped.
......<2> "Case with security" & "Tight security"
Most of the accused are Kokuro members of Kyusyu and Osaka (Both are located
at West Japan, and the custody and court are in Tokyo, East Japan). Many of
their families, colleagues in the workplaces and fellow members of Kokuro union
have come to Tokyo to hear the trials taking (paid) holidays. The number of
those people is exceeding hundred and dozens.
Not a few people take a great interest in the 1047 workers struggle. They regard
this case quite important, and see the future of the Article 28 of the Constitution
(workers' right to organize union) in this case.
Thus, from the viewpoint of fair judge and national justice, the case needs
to be examined in front of as many hearers as possible. This is the very reason
why the defence has requested to use the courtroom 104, the biggest and has
98 seats for the trial. After several negotiations, however, the court rejected
our request with the reason: "necessity of security", despite of the similar
precedent case. After the passed 2 time trials when more than 100 people were
denied to enter the room to hear and had to sit and fill the corridor in front
of the courtroom, this point has been improved this time (the 3rd trial).
Heavy security system, however, still continues today and all the 8 defendants
are "sandwiched" by securities from the both sides. This is not just heavy pressure
on the defendants, but also great obstacles against appropriate defence activity.
This condition makes us doubt that the judge still hold preconception and bias
and think this case as atrocious crime.
......<3> Content of "Well-ordered Court"
Your honour, you underline the "well-ordered court". It is good as abstract
expression, but what matters is its content. "Well-ordered court" should not
become the aim itself. "Well-ordered court" is needed not for meditation, but
for fair judge.
[A] Modern courts are different the feudal one where authority judged powerless
servants. Until sentenced, defendants must be treated as not guilty. The defendants
in this trial, however, have been brought to courtroom handcuffed on the wrists
and roped at the back. This seems quite ridiculous to the eyes of the people.
[B] It is natural and acceptable that hearers are not allowed to make noise
as loud as the voice of defence and prosecutor cannot be heard. Yet hearers'
role in the court is representing the people, the sovereign of the nation. Hearers
want justice in the execution of power and it is also natural and the expression
of their humanity when they give a certain cheer, booing and criticism at the
trial process. The person in charge can enjoy having an occasion of self-examination,
but cannot dislike it. If criticism has no ground, s/he can just talk and convince
about it, and the criticism is no harm for the fair judge.
At the era of Meiji Constitution (under this, Japan waged imperial wars), judges
were higher graded than servant as the proxy of the Emperor. Under the post-war
Constitution, however, the people are the sovereign. The seat for judge at courtroom
is situated higher than other seats in physical sense, but this is just for
ensuring better view. It would not be better to regard it as a higher status
than the people.
..... (3) We demand fair and open trial based on the Constitution and conscience,
and we plead not guilty.
Judges shall obey their conscience, do their work as independent, and be restrained
just by the Constitution and related laws (Article 76 of the Constitution).
Mr. Pierre Lyon Carn, the director of the Pontoise Great Court in France, once
came to Japan and said: "The duties of judges are to protect the right of the
weakest completely, to make the strongest obey to the common rules and quoting
the words of present constitution code, to be security for the individual freedom".
This case has betrayed his idea. Judges, so far, grant the denial of common
rule by the strong like the government, ruling parties, JR companies and Kokuro
Head Office, their followers. On the contrary, They are oppressing the protest
and unity activities by the members of Fight Corps and supporter workers who
got victory sentence at Labour Relations Commission but were denied by the District
Court and were about to be expelled by the union.
With more than 400 people including an ex-president of Japan Layer Coalition,
scholars and critics, "Campaign against oppression on Kokuro provisional conference
27/May" has been formed. Many people put en eye on the case now. They want fair
trial and not guilty sentence.
The point in the case is: Even the court and judge take part in the unfair labour
practice and the denial of rule by the strong? Chief justice Aoyanagi, judges
Matsuda and Kajikawa, we would earnestly like you not to ignore the Constitution,
not to show your loyalty to Mr. Nakasone, the then Prime minister who forced
the JNR's Division & Privatization rather than to the Constitution, and not
to wound the trust for justice and its authority.
Return to the top of this page
----------------------------------------------------
...TRIAL SCHEDULE OF THE CASE ON 2003
----------------------------------------------------
ALL START FROM 13:15 AT TOKYO DISTRICT COURT.
The 01st, Mon 03 Feb 2003, at Courtroom 429 - Mr. Matsuzaki's statement
The 02nd, Thu 13 Feb 2003, at Courtroom 429
The 03rd, Mon 03 Mar 2003, at Courtroom 104 - Mr. Sato's statement
The 04th, Mon 17 Mar 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 05th, Mon 21 Apr 2003, at Courtroom 103
The 06th, Fri 16 May 2003, at Courtroom 103
The 07th, Wed 01 Jun 2003, at Courtroom 103
The 08th, Tue 17 Jun 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 09th, Wed 02 Jul 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 10th, Fei 18 Jul 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 11th, Wed 27 Aug 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 12th, Wed 17 Sep 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 13th, Mon 06 Oct 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 14th, Mon 27 Oct 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 15th, Fri 21 Nov 2003, at Courtroom 104
The 16th, Tue 16 Dec 2003, at Courtroom 104
Return to the top of this page