May 20 & 21, 2011
A JAL contract cabin attendant, a member of the Japan Airlines Cabin Crew Union (CCU), is now fighting in court to get her job back. Her court battle highlights the actual situation of Japan Airlines’ (JAL) malicious labor management.
JAL employs cabin attendants under one-year contracts. After renewing their contracts three times, JAL provides them full-time positions in principle.
However, a 26-year-old plaintiff was denied the third renewal of her contract.
In May 2008, she was hired by JAL as a contract cabin attendant. At the beginning of the two-month on-the-job training, a company’s instructor explained, “All of you, contract cabin attendants, can become full-time workers unless something very unusual, such as leaking of confidential corporate information, takes place.”
In early December 2008, her supervisor began saying, “You lack the qualities that a cabin attendant needs. You should resign.” Although she expressed her intention to make improvements, it was ignored.
JAL pushed her to give up her career in various ways. JAL interviewed her for three hours immediately after her long flight and conducted an evaluation of her job performance for several days until she made mistake, although the company usually conducts the evaluation in one day.
When she e-mailed to her senior colleague about the company’s pressure for her to resign, this colleague forwarded her e-mail message to the company.
JAL and the JAL Friendship and Improvement Organization, affiliated with the pro-corporate Japanese Trade Union Confederation (Rengo), jointly collected personal information from all JAL cabin attendants. This drew public criticism.
One day, she was ordered to draw up a document she was not familiar with. However, she could not ask anyone for help, fearing that JAL was obtaining every piece of information about her from anyone she contacts.
Facing such circumstances, she had a chance to read a CCU organ paper stating that the union welcomes even contract cabin attendants to join.
During the job training, she only heard bad things about the CCU from a company official. However, when she visited the union’s office, she received gentle and friendly advice from union members. “I found out about my place in the workplace for the first time,” she recalled.
Enduring harsh treatment by JAL, she continued her work. However, in April 2010, JAL dismissed her.
With support from the CCU, in July 2010, she decided to file a lawsuit demanding that JAL restore her to her original position. When a worker whose workplace has no union like the CCU expressed envy of her union support, she really thought that she was lucky to have the opportunity to join the CCU.
The CCU has many years of experience in the movement taking up the issue of non-regular employment.
In 1994, JAL announced a plan to use contract cabin attendants. The plan has a JAL subsidiary hire cabin attendants and send them to JAL, and the maximum period for their contracts with the JAL subsidiary is 36 months.
The CCU launched their movement against the JAL’s plan by claiming that cabin attendants whose contracts will be terminated in a short period of time cannot get the experience essential for a cabin attendant. Together with other airline companies’ CAs, the union took to the streets in demonstrations in order to appeal to the public.
As a result of the struggle, JAL decided to directly hire non-regular cabin attendants under one-year contracts and to provide full-time positions after renewing their contracts three times.
CCU members, who are veteran cabin attendants, led the movement calling on the company to give full-time status to contract cabin attendants. Because of this, JAL discriminated against them in their wages and promotions and, in December 2010, unfairly dismissed them by using their age as an excuse.
The plaintiff said, “I was shocked by the dismissals of CCU members who stood up for me. I really wish to go back to flight duty together with them by winning our court battle. I want to work with them to promote air safety.”
JAL employs cabin attendants under one-year contracts. After renewing their contracts three times, JAL provides them full-time positions in principle.
However, a 26-year-old plaintiff was denied the third renewal of her contract.
In May 2008, she was hired by JAL as a contract cabin attendant. At the beginning of the two-month on-the-job training, a company’s instructor explained, “All of you, contract cabin attendants, can become full-time workers unless something very unusual, such as leaking of confidential corporate information, takes place.”
In early December 2008, her supervisor began saying, “You lack the qualities that a cabin attendant needs. You should resign.” Although she expressed her intention to make improvements, it was ignored.
JAL pushed her to give up her career in various ways. JAL interviewed her for three hours immediately after her long flight and conducted an evaluation of her job performance for several days until she made mistake, although the company usually conducts the evaluation in one day.
When she e-mailed to her senior colleague about the company’s pressure for her to resign, this colleague forwarded her e-mail message to the company.
JAL and the JAL Friendship and Improvement Organization, affiliated with the pro-corporate Japanese Trade Union Confederation (Rengo), jointly collected personal information from all JAL cabin attendants. This drew public criticism.
One day, she was ordered to draw up a document she was not familiar with. However, she could not ask anyone for help, fearing that JAL was obtaining every piece of information about her from anyone she contacts.
Facing such circumstances, she had a chance to read a CCU organ paper stating that the union welcomes even contract cabin attendants to join.
During the job training, she only heard bad things about the CCU from a company official. However, when she visited the union’s office, she received gentle and friendly advice from union members. “I found out about my place in the workplace for the first time,” she recalled.
Enduring harsh treatment by JAL, she continued her work. However, in April 2010, JAL dismissed her.
With support from the CCU, in July 2010, she decided to file a lawsuit demanding that JAL restore her to her original position. When a worker whose workplace has no union like the CCU expressed envy of her union support, she really thought that she was lucky to have the opportunity to join the CCU.
The CCU has many years of experience in the movement taking up the issue of non-regular employment.
In 1994, JAL announced a plan to use contract cabin attendants. The plan has a JAL subsidiary hire cabin attendants and send them to JAL, and the maximum period for their contracts with the JAL subsidiary is 36 months.
The CCU launched their movement against the JAL’s plan by claiming that cabin attendants whose contracts will be terminated in a short period of time cannot get the experience essential for a cabin attendant. Together with other airline companies’ CAs, the union took to the streets in demonstrations in order to appeal to the public.
As a result of the struggle, JAL decided to directly hire non-regular cabin attendants under one-year contracts and to provide full-time positions after renewing their contracts three times.
CCU members, who are veteran cabin attendants, led the movement calling on the company to give full-time status to contract cabin attendants. Because of this, JAL discriminated against them in their wages and promotions and, in December 2010, unfairly dismissed them by using their age as an excuse.
The plaintiff said, “I was shocked by the dismissals of CCU members who stood up for me. I really wish to go back to flight duty together with them by winning our court battle. I want to work with them to promote air safety.”
