Workers and Competition Law in Japan

The AMA does not apply to workers’ collective actions protected by labour law. Due to the uncertainty in the definition of workers and coverage of labour law, the extent to which self-employed workers’ collective actions are exempt from the AMA has become unclear. In such a context, it is imperative to recognise that small economic entities’ collective bargaining and other activities that trade unions are engaged in are not always anticompetitive and that an AMA violation is not found unless substantial restriction of competition, or lessening of competition, is caused by the practices. Moreover, the actions of co-operatives are also exempt from the AMA and those who are not protected as workers can strengthen their bargaining position by forming co-operatives. The AMA is primarily enforced by the JFTC and its interest has been rather to protect small businesses from those with superior bargaining positions. For the time being, it is unlikely that the JFTC will start prosecuting the collective actions of self-employed workers which may be protected by the labour law. The paper details the relationship between labour and competition law in Japan focusing worker's collective actions.

Japan’s engagement with international models of competition law has been decidedly ambiguous and counter-cyclical with its economic performance. During times of prolonged economic growth, Japan’s attitude to Western styles of competition regulation has been predominantly skeptical, if not hostile. By contrast, during times of economic stagnation, it has been much more positive. The first part of this chapter charts the ebb and flow of competition law in Japan. In the 1950s and 1960s, competition law conflicted with Japan’s industrial policy and enforcement became anemic. There was a revival in the 1970s, when the oil crisis wreaked havoc on the Japanese economy, but momentum was lost again in the 1980s. Finally, in the 1990s and 2000s, competition law gained increasing acceptance among policymakers seeking ways to revive a stagnating economy. The second part of this chapter explores the link between competition law and Japan’s specific form of capitalism. It argues that competition law can best be characterized as a legal irritant, rather than as a legal transplant that is either fully accepted or rejected. Indeed, the introduction of competition law in Japan triggered a process of mutual irritation between the law and Japan's economic system. This process led to a double transformation: on the one hand, competition law was changed, interpreted and enforced in ways to make it more compatible with Japan’s capitalism. At the same time, competition law triggered change in Japan's economic and social order. This process of mutual irritation is still continuing and suggests that competition law in Japan will continue to evolve, in parallel with Japan's capitalist system itself and conditioned by the performance of that system, along a trajectory distinct from that of the West.

This article gives an overview of competition law in Japan, with a particular focus on recent cases and developments. It touches upon most major aspects of competition law in Japan, including its substantive rules, enforcement mechanisms and historical background. The article also discusses the application of Japanese competition law to cross-border cases and reflects on the role and awareness of competition law in Japan.Two versions of this article are available on SSRN. In this version, we have added the Japanese terms for key concepts such as "surcharges" or "substantial restraint of competition". The Japanese terms are written in both roman transcription and Japanese characters. For readers not interested in the Japanese terms, we recommend the other version, as its text is uninterrupted and therefore easier to read.

This article gives an overview of competition law in Japan, with a particular focus on recent cases and developments. It touches upon most major aspects of competition law in Japan, including its substantive rules, enforcement mechanisms and historical background. The article also discusses the application of Japanese competition law to cross-border cases and reflects on the role and awareness of competition law in Japan.Two versions of this article are available on SSRN. In this version, we have added the Japanese terms for key concepts such as surcharges or substantial restraint of competition. The Japanese terms are written in both roman transcription and Japanese characters. For readers not interested in the Japanese terms, we recommend the other version, as its text is uninterrupted and therefore easier to read.

Modern Japanese Law Series This new series has been established to provide scholars and practitioners with a library of books which deal with contemporary issues in Japanese law, particularly in areas of law which are of importance to the international business community. It will include books on Japanese labour law, the Law of Civil Procedure, Securities Regulation, and environmental law. Two volumes containing accurate and up-to-date translations of all the major Japanese Codes (Civil and Criminal) are planned for 1994. This book analyses the means by which the Japanese government regulates business activity, principally through the use of competition or anti-monopoly laws. These laws operate both within Japan and, to a lesser extent, beyond. The book also looks at legal aspects of industrial policy as well as the legal framework of foreign trade and investment in Japan. As such it goes to the very heart of industrial and commercial life in Japan, and will be of interest to all those who are involved in doing business with Japan, as well as to their legal and financial advisers.

On April 30, 2009, one day before the 5th anniversary of the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003 on the reform of EC competition law procedural rules, the Commission of the European Communities published a Report on the functioning of the Regulation. In this Report, the Commission outlines its decision-making practices over the last five years and examines the impact of the new procedural arrangements on its productivity and duration of proceedings. Furthermore, the Commission describes its experience from its cooperation with National Competition Authorities (“NCAs”) and National Courts. One of the most radical reforms that Council Regulation 1/2003 brought about was the abolishment of the prior notification system of agreements for individual exemption under Art. 81(3) and the introduction of the “self-assessment” system, which allowed the parties to decide whether their agreement qualified for an exemption and was therefore legal. The main purpose of such reform, which rendered Art. 81 (3) directly applicable, was to reduce the Commission workload associated with hundreds of notifications — many of which concerned agreements without any anticompetitive effects — and allow it to “concentrate its resources on curbing the most serious infringements, while also relieving undertakings from considerable costs.” According to the Commission Report, this aim has been largely fulfilled, unnecessary bureaucracy has been reduced, and the Commission has been able to focus its resources on important competition issues requiring extensive analysis. The Report also points out that the majority of Member States have followed the model of Regulation 1/2003 and abolished the notification system of their national competition law; to date, national competition laws of more than 20 Member States operate without any notification obligation. A further success of Regulation 1/2003, pursuant to the Commission Report, was the creation of the European Network of Competition Authorities (“ECN”), which allowed NCAs and the Commission to effectively cooperate towards the uniform application of competition law within EEA — a very challenging goal of the Modernization Package which has created concerns as to its feasibility. Such concerns are acknowledged by the Commission, which notes in its Report that there are still areas which merit improvement, such as the negative impact of national divergences in the NCAs’ fining powers, procedural rules, and treatment of unilateral conduct. The aforementioned Commission Report has major importance for Greece as it coincided with the presentation of a Bill aimed at reforming the existing national competition law, namely C.L. 703/1977. The Bill has two main goals, according to its preamble: a) to reinforce the role of the Hellenic Competition Commission (“HCC”) and b) to harmonize the Greek Competition Law to the acquis communautaire. The current legal regime indeed presents quite many discrepancies with the EC legislation; the main ones are stated below:

This study proposes a new calculation method for the evaluation of hazards for occupational safety and health called Multiple AXes Matrices – MAXM. The protection of workers from workplace threats that can cause unwanted events is a basic condition for guaranteeing these fair, safe and humane working conditions for employees. The purpose of this risk assessment activity is to determine the severity and likelihood of hazardous consequences (i.e., possible occupational accidents and diseases). Acute and chronic effects on worker safety and health must be considered.

This book analyses the current state of Japanese law after a series of reforms since 1990. In that year, the US–Japan Structural Impediments Initiatives Talk necessitating fundamental changes to the conventional system in Japan was completed. At the same time, the ‘bubble economy’ came to an end and Japan embarked on a long path to economic recovery. As a result, the Japanese legal system has undergone significant changes. Depending on the area of law, not all the reforms were successful, but it is beyond doubt that major changes took place across the board. The core of the book is commercial and business-related laws such as corporate law, securities law, contract law, and competition law. There was a fundamental change in corporate law over past three decades, not the least because of the new Company Law of 2004. The entire system of corporate governance now is very different from the previous insider-dominated system. Major changes took place in securities law after the Japanese ‘Big Bang’. Competition law in Japan, which had once been regarded as ‘dormant’, is now in full operation. The book also considers contract law, which, as part of the Civil Code, has undergone a major change in 2020. In order to understand commercial and business law, accurate understanding of the dispute settlement mechanism and the procedure is needed and this is duly covered. The book addresses these issues by studying the case law as well as legislative history and business practice.

The interaction between information, innovation and market outcomes is shaping the modern digital industries of the 21 st century: the business models of search engines, social networks, e-commerce websites and marketplaces are highly reliant on the ability to gather and process large amount of data. At the same time, it is increasingly recognized that the use of Big Data by online platforms and intermediaries has far-reaching consequences not only on economic activity, but also on social and political mechanisms: technological developments affecting information flows affect the organization of markets as well as the nature of individual interactions and the functioning of the political process. A set of complementary policy tools is needed to define a comprehensive governance of online markets that effectively protects competition, consumers as well as individuals’ privacy and media pluralism. Not all sensitive issues raised by Big Data are also competition issues. However, because of the high degree of concentration that characterizes online markets, antitrust policy finds itself at the crossroad between Big Data and the transformative effects that the Internet is having on the economy and on society. Antitrust enforcement is well equipped and sufficiently flexible to adapt its analytical tools to deal effectively with potential data-driven competition problems and thus contribute to the economic governance of digital market. This article focuses on the implications that Big Data have for antitrust enforcement, i.e. on the potential application of competition law to those (pathological) situations in which Big Data might be used by a dominant company to foreclose competitors or to exploit consumers, might be a relevant factor in the assessment of mergers’ anticompetitive effects or might facilitate collusive behavior.

This study aims to examine the implications of home working, digital stress, and the right to disconnect (R2D) across six Western Balkan economies in relation to EU standards, focusing on the legal and psychosocial challenges of work digitalization. The research employs a multidisciplinary analysis of legal frameworks and workplace practices, examining employee rights, employer obligations, occupational safety and health (OSH), work hours, GDPR compliance, and social security systems in the post-COVID-19 context. Findings reveal that while all studied economies demonstrate basic remote work regulations and data protection progress, significant variations in legislative quality exist. Serbia shows notable advancement in OSH regulations, and Albania has successfully modified telework laws. However, substantial gaps persist in working hours enforcement, R2D implementation, home office OSH guidelines, and remote worker training provisions. As practical implications for organizations and policymakers, the study suggests they must prioritize developing comprehensive remote work policies, establishing clear digital boundaries, and implementing effective OSH guidelines for home offices. In conclusion, the successful integration of remote work in Western Balkan economies requires harmonization with EU standards, strengthened enforcement mechanisms, and enhanced social dialogue to ensure fair, secure, and efficient remote working conditions.

Digital platforms may generate economic dependence on their trading partners, with a double effect. Downstream, it may result in the exploitation of weaker parties that cannot compete on an equal footing against bigger ones. Horizontally, economic dependence may raise entry barriers since the platform’s trading partners cannot switch to a different platform without engaging in significant costs, which might result in a lock-in effect. If so, due to the economics of platforms, the market may tend towards tipping scenarios in which one player—the winner—takes the whole market. As already alerted by several reports worldwide, in the digital context, these threats can rapidly become real harms. Against this backdrop and considering that Latin America is witnessing the advent and rapid growth of digital platforms in different markets, this paper explores whether one of this region’s jurisdictions—Chile—is prepared to address these new threats. Considering a distinction between two types of economic power—dominant power and uneven bargaining power—and the effects that economic dependence may generate on the market’s functioning, the paper maps four possible harmful scenarios: dominance with anticompetitive effects; no-dominance without anticompetitive effects; no-dominance with horizontal anticompetitive effects; no-dominance with up/downstream anticompetitive effects. We argue that the Chilean legal framework—i.e., unfair competition law (Law 20.169) and competition law (DL 211)—has sufficient scope to address all but the last scenario. Regarding the latter, a legal modification would be necessary.

This article explores the question of overlap in unfair competition law in Japan and Korea and discusses whether the introduction of a general clause could address the problem of overlap. Positive laws regulating unfair competition in Japan and Korea have adopted a similar set of rules based on specific conduct regulation, with some variation. Notably, Korean law now prohibits the unfair use of another’s achievement based on an open clause, complementing the specific list of prohibited conduct. The article first presents an overview of unfair competition law in Japan and Korea, highlighting the requirements for protection and limitations, and then explores the problem of overlapping claims surrounding data misappropriation. Contrasting the legislative techniques used by Japan and Korea, this article notes that an open norm may provide the judiciary with an interpretative tool to dynamically address emerging unfair conduct. However, as there is a danger of limiting free competition and potential internal inconsistencies, to avoid asymmetric convergence, open norms should be carefully coordinated with specific conduct prohibitions, with clear prioritization.

This article analyzes the meaning and role of formalism in competition law. Drawing on general legal theory and philosophy, this article conceives of formalism as decision-making constrained by rules, whereby rules exclude considerations from the decision-making process. It analyzes the degree to which per se rules and the rule of reason in U.S. antitrust law and the category of “by object” restrictions in EU competition law involve formalistic reasoning. It subsequently discusses the relationship between “legal form” and “anticompetitive effects” and the debate on “form-based” versus “effects-based” approaches to competition law. It concludes that “effects-based” approaches to competition law typically involve formalistic legal rules, thus deconstructing the well-known form–effect dichotomy. Finally, this article analyzes the normative relationship between formalism, type 1 and 2 errors, and legal certainty, and argues that this relationship is fundamentally shaped by beliefs about institutional competence and the allocation of decisional jurisdiction. The article concludes by arguing against pejorative conceptions of “formalistic” and “form-based” competition law. Competition law, like law in general, is inherently formalistic, albeit to a limited degree. Rather than the empty dichotomy of “form” versus “effect,” the central question in competition law is to which formalism it ought to be committed.

Occupational health is the right of every worker to be guaranteed by the business owner. Workers are free to choose the type of work so as to obtain fair and prosperous working conditions. In the scope of occupational health prosperous has a very broad meaning covers all aspects of life ranging from health, safety, tranquility, feasibility and comfort in work (PP No.50, 2012). One of the hazards of occupational health is the danger of ergonomics. The objective of the paper was to analyze factors related to subjective complaints of musculoskeletal disorder (MSDS) disease in insurance company workers. This research is a quantitative analytic research using cross-sectional study design because in this research the data collection of the dependent variable and the independent variable is observed in the period of time together. The results showed that the description of the distribution of complaints entered the Medium category. Individual factors picture of complaints at age 36-45 years of male sex and tenureg 3 years. A description of the REBA ergonomic risk factor level was obtained by the final score of 7 (Medium) and 9 (High). The description of work equipment according to CSA standards and relationship test results for individual factors on the variable age and service period there is a significant relationship, while for gender variables there is no significant relationship. For test result of REBA risk factor factor and labor factor factor test, there was no significant correlation with severity of MSDs disease subjective severity.

1757b Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work