What the court decided
The employee was hired in 2001 as a technician to adapt and build welfare equipment at a prefectural centre, which the Shiga Prefecture Social Welfare Council took over running in 2003, and did that work for about 18 years. Nothing in writing limited his job, but the lower courts found an implied agreement that he would only do that work. When demand fell, the council transferred him to facilities management in its general affairs section from 1 April 2019, without his consent. The lower courts accepted the transfer as a legitimate way to avoid dismissing him.
The Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, unanimously disagreed. Where there is an agreement limiting the job or duties, the employer simply has no power to order a transfer that breaks it without the employee's individual consent. The question of abuse of that power never arises. The case was sent back, and in January 2025 the Osaka High Court found the council liable in tort.
Why it matters
Since the 1986 Toa Paint case, Japanese employers have assumed a broad right to move staff. This ruling sets the limit: the right depends on the contract. It comes as job-based hiring spreads and, since April 2024, every hire's written terms must state how far duties and workplace may change.
Action for employers
- Write the scope of change deliberately. For specialist hires, decide before the offer whether you need the option to redeploy, and say so in the labour conditions notice.
- Look for implied limits. Long service in one specialist role can create a limitation even without a written one.
- Get consent in writing. Where a role is closing, offer the alternative and record the employee's agreement; do not order it.
- Plan restructuring with the limit in mind. Redeployment as a way to avoid dismissal is not available by order for job-limited staff.
Sources
- Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, judgment of 26 April 2024, Case No. 2023 (Ju) 604 (Shiga Prefecture Social Welfare Council case).
- Osaka High Court, judgment on remand, 23 January 2025 (reported in Rodo Shimbun's labour case digest).
- Nagashima Ohno and Tsunematsu, summary of the Supreme Court judgment (July 2024).