What the court decided
In two judgments the same day, the Supreme Court, Third Petty Bench, reversed the Fukuoka High Court and upheld sanctions imposed in March 2017 by the fire chief of Itoshima City in Fukuoka.
In the first case, a section leader had joined in tying a new recruit to a horizontal bar with rope, making him do pull-ups and leaving him hanging for minutes after he gave out; had pushed and struck him and made him apologise aloud to a piece of equipment. He had already received a written warning for verbal abuse. He was suspended for six months, the maximum. In the second, a unit leader had, over more than ten years, put at least ten subordinates through similar punishing drills and insulted them and their families. He was dismissed.
The High Court had found both sanctions too harsh because no one was seriously hurt, neither officer had prior discipline, and they showed some remorse. The Supreme Court held that the conduct went far beyond any instruction or training, caused fear and humiliation whether or not it injured anyone, and badly damaged the workplace. The need for tough training in fire services did not excuse it.
Why it matters
These are public-sector cases decided under the Local Public Service Act, and private-sector dismissals are tested under the Labour Contract Act. But the Supreme Court has signalled that a long pattern of power harassment can justify the heaviest sanction, and that the absence of injury is not a mitigating factor.
Action for employers
- Do not wait for injury. Investigate humiliation and intimidation on their own terms.
- Use the warning step. A prior written warning that was ignored weighed heavily here; record it.
- Look for patterns. Staff surveys and resignations by junior staff were part of the evidence. Act on them early.
- Match the sanction to the conduct, not the culture. "That is how we train" is no defence.
Sources
- Supreme Court, Third Petty Bench, judgments of 2 September 2025, Case No. 2024 (Gyo-Hi) 214 and Case No. 2024 (Gyo-Hi) 241.
- Local Public Service Act, Article 29; Labour Contract Act, Articles 15 and 16.