Like all Japanese firms with more than ten employees, Kochi Hoso, a radio broadcasting company, was required to maintain rules of employment that specified the conditions under which an employee could be discharged. Kochi Hoso clearly specified that tardiness for a broadcast was cause for dismissal. No contractual provision excused such tardiness. The plaintiff, a radio announcer, had failed twice to arrive at the studio in time for a news broadcast. After the second offense, Kochi Hoso discharged the plaintiff, pointing to the unambiguous rules. Plaintiff sought reinstatement, arguing that although the discharge was within the rules, it was unreasonable or contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court found no reasonable cause for termination.
1. If a firm were establishing an office in Japan, how would it determine the "socially accepted" view on the discharge of employees for tardiness? Would it look to the relevant statutes?
2. Traditionally, Japanese work for an employer their entire careers. How does that influence the "socially accepted" view reflected in this opinion? Is employment law affected by social norms in the United States?
3. In a country that views employment as strictly a contractual relationship, how would this case have come out?