For example if my work location is my home address (written in my contract), can my employer unilaterally change it to a different address such as the main office?
>（労働契約の内容の変更） (Change to the Contents of a Labor Contract) 第八条労働者及び使用者は、その合意により、労働契約の内容である労働条件を変更することができる。 Article 8A Worker and an Employer may, by agreement, change any working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract. > >（就業規則による労働契約の内容の変更） (Change to the Contents of a Labor Contract Based on Rules of Employment) 第九条使用者は、労働者と合意することなく、就業規則を変更することにより、労働者の不利益に労働契約の内容である労働条件を変更することはできない。ただし、次条の場合は、この限りでない。 Article 9An Employer may not change any of the working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract in a manner disadvantageous to a Worker by changing the rules of employment, unless an agreement to do so has been reached with the Worker; provided, however, that this does not apply to the cases set forth in the following Article. > >第十条使用者が就業規則の変更により労働条件を変更する場合において、変更後の就業規則を労働者に周知させ、かつ、就業規則の変更が、労働者の受ける不利益の程度、労働条件の変更の必要性、変更後の就業規則の内容の相当性、労働組合等との交渉の状況その他の就業規則の変更に係る事情に照らして合理的なものであるときは、労働契約の内容である労働条件は、当該変更後の就業規則に定めるところによるものとする。ただし、労働契約において、労働者及び使用者が就業規則の変更によっては変更されない労働条件として合意していた部分については、第十二条に該当する場合を除き、この限りでない。 Article 10When an Employer changes the working conditions by changing the rules of employment, if the Employer informs the Worker of the changed rules of employment, and if the change to the rules of employment is reasonable in light of the extent of the disadvantage to be incurred by the Worker, the need for changing the working conditions, the appropriateness of the contents of the changed rules of employment, the status of negotiations with a labor union or the like, or any other circumstances pertaining to the change to the rules of employment, the working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract are to be in accordance with such changed rules of employment; provided, however, that this does not apply to any portion of the labor contract which the Worker and the Employer have agreed on as being the working conditions that are not to be changed by any change to the rules of employment, except in cases that fall under Article 12.
On top of the law, there’s basically a lot of legal precedent as well. But interpret it as follows:
1. your employer like you is bound by the contract and the work regulations. you always get the better of the two. 2. you and your employer can always agree to a change – in which case no problem 3. there’s a reasonability test for other changes
So they could argue that you need to be there to reasonably do the job assigned to you, and a court might agree if it came to that.
Separately, if you’re on yearly contracts, they could decide not to rehire you.
But if your employer wants you in the office and you don’t want to go, then maybe look for a different employer?
Companies can assign you (a permanent employee) new jobs and locations but it must be reasonable/justified. For example it cannot be seen as vindictive. If your current role is going away and they are offering you to move to an office based position, it would be viewed very differently by a court than if, say, they just decide to send you to a far away branch for no good reason hoping to get you to quit.
Depends a lot on the contract and work rules. At typical Japanese companies and even some gaishi they can send you to remote locations if they feel like it. It’s also a convenient way for companies to get people to quit. “Oh you just bought a house in Chiba? Would be a shame if someone relocated you to Hokkaido how”
In my workplace my contract is home base, but we can change to hybrid or office at any time. Some times the manager ask people to change from home base to office , but that is, he ask “can u change next week to office base?” , my co workers are all Japanese and they have no issues in saying “no, I don’t want too” 😂
6 comments
Are you an employee (then yes with some limits) or a contractor (then no)?
If it says that they can in the company rules, then they probably can. Those are part of the contract.
Not giving legal advice but the relevant law is the Labor Contracts Act ([https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3744](https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3744)) .
The relevant section is Articles 8 to 10:
>（労働契約の内容の変更）
(Change to the Contents of a Labor Contract)
第八条労働者及び使用者は、その合意により、労働契約の内容である労働条件を変更することができる。
Article 8A Worker and an Employer may, by agreement, change any working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract.
>
>（就業規則による労働契約の内容の変更）
(Change to the Contents of a Labor Contract Based on Rules of Employment)
第九条使用者は、労働者と合意することなく、就業規則を変更することにより、労働者の不利益に労働契約の内容である労働条件を変更することはできない。ただし、次条の場合は、この限りでない。
Article 9An Employer may not change any of the working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract in a manner disadvantageous to a Worker by changing the rules of employment, unless an agreement to do so has been reached with the Worker; provided, however, that this does not apply to the cases set forth in the following Article.
>
>第十条使用者が就業規則の変更により労働条件を変更する場合において、変更後の就業規則を労働者に周知させ、かつ、就業規則の変更が、労働者の受ける不利益の程度、労働条件の変更の必要性、変更後の就業規則の内容の相当性、労働組合等との交渉の状況その他の就業規則の変更に係る事情に照らして合理的なものであるときは、労働契約の内容である労働条件は、当該変更後の就業規則に定めるところによるものとする。ただし、労働契約において、労働者及び使用者が就業規則の変更によっては変更されない労働条件として合意していた部分については、第十二条に該当する場合を除き、この限りでない。
Article 10When an Employer changes the working conditions by changing the rules of employment, if the Employer informs the Worker of the changed rules of employment, and if the change to the rules of employment is reasonable in light of the extent of the disadvantage to be incurred by the Worker, the need for changing the working conditions, the appropriateness of the contents of the changed rules of employment, the status of negotiations with a labor union or the like, or any other circumstances pertaining to the change to the rules of employment, the working conditions that constitute the contents of a labor contract are to be in accordance with such changed rules of employment; provided, however, that this does not apply to any portion of the labor contract which the Worker and the Employer have agreed on as being the working conditions that are not to be changed by any change to the rules of employment, except in cases that fall under Article 12.
On top of the law, there’s basically a lot of legal precedent as well. But interpret it as follows:
1. your employer like you is bound by the contract and the work regulations. you always get the better of the two.
2. you and your employer can always agree to a change – in which case no problem
3. there’s a reasonability test for other changes
So they could argue that you need to be there to reasonably do the job assigned to you, and a court might agree if it came to that.
Separately, if you’re on yearly contracts, they could decide not to rehire you.
But if your employer wants you in the office and you don’t want to go, then maybe look for a different employer?
Companies can assign you (a permanent employee) new jobs and locations but it must be reasonable/justified. For example it cannot be seen as vindictive. If your current role is going away and they are offering you to move to an office based position, it would be viewed very differently by a court than if, say, they just decide to send you to a far away branch for no good reason hoping to get you to quit.
Depends a lot on the contract and work rules. At typical Japanese companies and even some gaishi they can send you to remote locations if they feel like it.
It’s also a convenient way for companies to get people to quit.
“Oh you just bought a house in Chiba? Would be a shame if someone relocated you to Hokkaido how”
In my workplace my contract is home base, but we can change to hybrid or office at any time. Some times the manager ask people to change from home base to office , but that is, he ask “can u change next week to office base?” , my co workers are all Japanese and they have no issues in saying “no, I don’t want too” 😂