Abstract
Labor laws in Japan are generally soft laws, and the Japanese legal system has yet to sufficiently recognize gig work; however, different laws with different principles exist in order to combat labor issues and regulate behaviors of business owners with the help of group dynamics (such as worker and customer trust in business owners). One reason to value an agreement with management in setting work rules is to ensure that management strictly follows these rules once they have been established. In terms of versatility and flexibility, labor laws in Japan may, to some extent, serve as a useful reference in a global context. In Japan, the scope of major labor protection laws for individuals (Labor Standards Act, Industrial Safety and Health Act, Labor Contracts Act, and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act) is not broad enough to appropriately cover gig work. The laws permit several interpretations, but they have limited flexibility. Laws that govern labor-management relations, including the Labor Union Act, may apply to gig work. In cases where they do, employers cannot refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of the workers, which would allow the representatives to discuss safety and health matters with the employer in question. The Industrial Safety and Health Act includes provisions reflecting the principle that a person who generates risk is responsible for risk management. The scope of the act has been gradually extended through legal interpretation and amendments. Still, it may not apply to all gig work. The Home Work Act for homeworkers or home handicraft workers requires both contractees and contractors to implement diverse health and safety controls. Although the act has been applied to limited types of work, in view of its similarity in terms of formative background (including the prohibition of evasion of responsibility by employers), some amendments could make the act applicable to a broader range of job types. The civil responsibility of employers for employees' occupational health and safety may bolster the principle that a person generating risk is responsible for risk management, and this part of the law has the highest potential to be applied to gig work. This would require, however, a relationship between the platform and the gig worker such that the platform can establish, control, and manage work conditions or command authority over the worker, which would allow the risks of work-related accidents (damages) to be easier to predict and control. Regarding economic laws, the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides a legal basis for the solidarity of sole proprietors and for negotiations with their clients. Still, it has been utilized very rarely to date. Essential duties to be imposed on platforms after new legislation is formulated in the future are risk investigation, provision of investigation results to gig workers, and a sincere response to collective bargaining, while measures to be taken by the government include investigations of general risks associated with gig work and of ideal countermeasures and the provision of relevant information. In addition, a scheme is necessary to make it possible that in cases where cooperatives that are protected under the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Cooperatives Act assign occupational physicians to conduct interviews with cooperative members, when the physicians deem it necessary to do so, cooperatives can approach contractees to improve the working conditions of the members in question. Furthermore, because research in occupational health and other fields has identified risks associated with gig work, in addition to future legislation, these schemes should be used to interpret the duty of consideration for safety and in mandatory negotiations between platforms and gig workers.
https://ror.org/05kt9ap64 
