[Follow-up] Objection to Dismissal Notice Issued by Maeda Corporation and Record of Responses
Date/Time: April 25, 2025, 18:04
From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com
To: ATOMURA atomura.k-gs@nhk.or.jp
Mr. Atomura,
Thank you as always for your review.
This is Shunsuke Kimura, whistleblower.
Today, I would like to report, after organizing the records, the series of exchanges concerning the “Dismissal Notice” sent to me by Maeda Corporation and my subsequent inquiries and objections.
◆ Overview of Events
- April 23, 2025: Received “Dismissal Notice” from Maeda Corporation
- April 24, 2025: Sent an inquiry document regarding the notification, asking for clarification of the reasons for dismissal and whether I would be given an opportunity to explain
- April 25, 2025: Response from the company (General Manager Akao): “This matter is outside my jurisdiction,” and “a written response will be sent at a later date within the legal scope”
- Same day: As an objection, I formally notified the following:
→ “At the time of the notice, the reasons for dismissal had not been finalized, and the obligation to provide a reasonable explanation had not been fulfilled. This is now confirmed in the record.”
◆ Significance of This Record
This case will be recorded as an instance in which a dismissal notice was issued to a whistleblower without explanation. It is important for two reasons:
✅ It records the structure in which a company notified a whistleblower of dismissal without providing an explanation
✅ The company’s response was limited to “scheduled to be sent later,” effectively failing to fulfill its obligation of explanation
Such a structure explicitly reveals the risk of “post-report exclusion” within the whistleblower system.
◆ Attached Materials (compiled in one file)
20250425_Objection_to_Dismissal_Notice_and_Corporate_Response_Record.pdf
— Contains the notice, inquiry document, corporate response, and objection letter in chronological order
If a formal written response from the company arrives, I will share it as an additional record.
I recognize this case as another important example that visualizes the reality of how whistleblowers are treated and the limitations of the system.
I hope this continues to contribute to institutional review and your judgment.
Sincerely,
Shunsuke Kimura
Date Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025
📘 OECD/UNCAC Legal Reference
- OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
- Chapter II (General Policies): Enterprises should act in good faith with stakeholders and avoid retaliatory measures against whistleblowers.
- Chapter IV (Human Rights): Dismissal without explanation following a whistleblower report constitutes a violation of internationally recognized human rights obligations.
- Chapter V (Employment and Industrial Relations): Requires enterprises to ensure fair treatment in employment, including due process in dismissal decisions.
- UNCAC (United Nations Convention against Corruption)
- Article 13 (Participation of Society): Calls for transparency and accountability to ensure whistleblowers’ cases are fairly considered.
- Article 33 (Protection of Reporting Persons): Encourages States Parties to provide effective protection from unjustified treatment, including retaliatory dismissal.
