My company’s personnel regulations stated in the past that a bonus of 100% of base salary would be paid quarterly and, if employment relations were terminated before the payment date, the bonus would be paid in proportion to the part of that quarter that was worked. However, the rule has changed so that if your employment ends before the payment date, you will not receive any of the bonus. When the company amended the employment rules, the head of the HR department met with the employees one-on-one and said we should sign the agreement. I did not have much choice and I signed it without reading it properly. Now, when I think back on this, it seems an unjustified change. Is there any chance I can withdraw my consent?
Personnel regulations that stipulate working conditions, including bonuses, that are applied to all workers are equivalent to rules of employment in legal nature under the Labor Standards Act. According to Article 94 of that Act, in order to alter the rules of employment, an employer shall hear the views of a trade union if there is such a trade union composed of the majority of workers in the business or workplace concerned, or otherwise hear the views of the majority of said workers if there is no trade union composed of the majority of workers. However, when amending the rules of employment unfavorably for workers, the employer shall obtain the consent of a majority of the workers for whom the employment rules apply.
As the bonus payment standard has changed, the proportional bonus that had been paid to a worker whose employment ended before the payment date will not be paid anymore, which is a disadvantageous change to the employment rules.
If changes to the rules of employment are not unfavorable, it is possible to listen and still require signatures consenting to the change on a circulating form. However, since this case represents an unfavorable change, obtaining consent in this way is not acceptable.
For agreement to an unfavorable change to the employment rules to be legitimate, procedures must be followed that include public notice and explanation of the unfavorable change so that workers will clearly understand the change. Then workers would hold a meeting to discuss and a majority view obtained on the disadvantageous change.
If it is difficult for all workers to meet in this way due to the nature of the work, the size of the business, or location of the workplaces, unit-by-unit meetings are permitted. However, the reason the Labor Standards Act requires the consent of a majority of the workers through a “meeting” is to form group opinions of the workers affected. So, if it is difficult for all workers to meet due to the special circumstances of the employer and therefore, the employer has to allow meetings by department, then the employer is obligated to take considerable measures to identify and form group opinions as if all workers were gathered together.
In the question above, the unfavorable change to the rules of employment would not be acceptable because signatures were gathered without unit-by-unit meetings or sufficient discussion nor a collective meeting on the change. Therefore, even if no procedures exist to withdraw consent, the rules of employment before the change will remain in effect.