[Follow-up] Receipt of Dismissal Reason Notice and Serious Procedural Issues
Date/Time: April 26, 2025, 11:06
From: Shunsuke Kimura shukku9998@gmail.com
To: ATOMURA atomura.k-gs@nhk.or.jp
Mr. Atomura,
Thank you very much, as always, for reviewing these matters.
This is Shunsuke Kimura, whistleblower.
Today, regarding the “Dismissal Notice” dated April 23, 2025, which I previously reported, I would like to share additional records concerning the subsequent “Dismissal Reason Notice” sent by the company.
◆ Newly Received Material
- “Dismissal Reason Notice”
Issued: April 25, 2025
Issuer: Maeda Corporation, President & CEO, Soji Maeda
◆ Serious Problems Identified at Present
【Procedural Reversal (Dismissal Notice Issued Before Reasons Confirmed)】
Although the “Dismissal Notice” was issued on April 23, the “Dismissal Reason Notice” was only issued two days later, on April 25.
In principle, the reasonable grounds for dismissal should be finalized and presented at the time of notice. This sequence itself constitutes a serious procedural violation.
【Official Admission of Whistleblower Exclusion】
In the stated reasons for dismissal, the following were explicitly written:
- “Reports to administrative agencies constitute acts of defamation against the company”
- “Requests for monetary compensation through the internal whistleblowing hotline are regarded as acts of intimidation”
This confirms that whistleblowing itself was incorporated as the core reason for dismissal.
This is a serious violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act and demonstrates that statutory protections are effectively nullified in practice.
【Official Record of Defamation】
The dismissal notice defines whistleblowing acts as “damaging credibility” or “injuring trust,” and characterizes internal communications after the reports as “intimidating statements.”
These expressions show an organizational intent to damage the whistleblower’s social reputation within an official document. This carries an extremely high risk of constituting civil defamation.
【Dependence on Subjective Assumptions (No Objective Evidence)】
Most reasons for dismissal rely on subjective assumptions such as “poor work attitude” and “misconduct,” without presenting specific evidence. Such reasoning cannot reasonably justify the exclusion of a whistleblower.
Furthermore, the “Dismissal Reason Notice” contains no supporting documentary evidence or objective records, leaving the entire dismissal procedure without the necessary foundation of proof.
This case should not be regarded merely as an individual labor issue but as:
- A direct act of destruction against the whistleblower protection system by the company
- A violation of the whistleblower’s social and personal rights
- A visualization of exclusionary methods exploiting systemic vulnerabilities
It requires broader social scrutiny and structural correction.
◆ Attached Document
- [Evidence PDF] 20250425_Maeda_Corporation_Dismissal_Reason_Notice.pdf
I hope this record will continue to assist your review and judgment.
Sincerely,
Shunsuke Kimura
📧 shukku9998@gmail.com
Date Sent: April 26, 2025
📘 OECD/UNCAC Legal Reference
- OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
- Chapter II (General Policies): Enterprises must avoid discrimination or retaliation against whistleblowers.
- Chapter IV (Human Rights): Dismissal based on whistleblowing constitutes a violation of internationally recognized human rights.
- Chapter V (Employment and Industrial Relations): Enterprises should respect due process and ensure that dismissal decisions are substantiated with evidence.
- UNCAC (United Nations Convention against Corruption)
- Article 13 (Participation of Society): Encourages public oversight and media scrutiny of retaliation against whistleblowers.
- Article 33 (Protection of Reporting Persons): Requires States Parties to establish protection against unjustified treatment, including retaliatory dismissal, of those who report in good faith.
