Preventing Sexual Harassment of Job Seekers: Communications and Consultation in Employee Visits and Internships

Hello, I'm Noriaki Asato, Representative Attorney at LegalAgent.

For recruitment interviews, many companies have the HR team manage the date, time and place. In employee visits and internships, on the other hand, applicants communicate directly with employees on the front line. How does the company keep track of those communications, and whom can an applicant consult when they run into trouble? In responding to the amended law that takes effect on October 1, 2026, these two points need to be checked.

A Scope Not Limited to Applicants

The amended Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (Japanese) requires employers to put in place, among other things, a system for responding to consultations so that the activities of job seekers and others are not hindered by sexual conduct by employees.

"Job seekers and others" include not only applicants for job openings but also people attending company information sessions or internships, people visiting employees, and people undergoing teaching practicums or nursing practicums. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's guidelines (Japanese) also list communications via social media and online activities as covered. A meeting does not fall outside the scope of the company's responsibility simply because it took place outside the office.

The sexual conduct at issue is not limited to physical contact. It also includes remarks asking about sexual matters and spreading information of a sexual nature. However, when the company receives a consultation, it should not immediately conclude that harassment has occurred. It will need to confirm what happened, when, and in the course of what activity, and what hindrance this caused to the person's job-seeking activities.

Matters the Company Should Decide in Advance

The guidelines require employers to set a policy of not tolerating sexual harassment of job seekers and others and a policy for dealing with those who engage in it, and to make these known to employees, including managers. At the same time, the employer must clarify the rules for dealing with job seekers and others and inform both employees and job seekers of them.

The examples of rules given in the guidelines are the time and place of meetings, the arrangements for conducting them, and the types of social media used for communication. The law does not require that multiple people be present at every employee visit. The task is to decide, in line with the reality of the company's recruitment, whether the company will designate communication channels or allow employees to communicate with applicants through their personal accounts.

The consultation desk must also be made known to job seekers and others. Even if the desk is listed on the employee intranet, applicants usually cannot see it. One approach is to show the consultation contact within the information applicants actually receive, such as the recruitment page, meeting invitations and internship participant materials.

If the desk is placed in the HR department, it can be expected that applicants may hesitate to consult out of concern about the effect on the hiring decision. The guidelines also mention the option of having someone other than HR staff handle the desk. Whichever department receives consultations, the company should avoid a practice in which the person receiving the consultation simply forwards the report to the interviewer, and should decide in advance with whom, and to what extent, information will be shared.

Applying This to Employee Visits and Internships

If the company arranges employee visits, the first thing to check is which contact channels are being used, from scheduling through to questions after the meeting. If the invitation email designates a company address but in practice employees and applicants can keep communicating via personal social media, the invitation and the actual practice are inconsistent. Besides telling the employees concerned the communication rules, the company should also show applicants the communication methods it approves.

In internships, employees other than recruiters supervise participants. Check whether the consultation contact appears in the materials given to participants, and also confirm that the supervising employees know that job seekers and others are covered by the new guidelines. When conducting training, explaining on the basis of who actually communicates with and meets participants in the current internship ties in with each employee's conduct better than reading out general prohibitions.

When a consultation comes in, the desk also accepts matters where it is unclear whether harassment is involved. In fact-finding, the company hears the accounts of the person who consulted and the employee alleged to have engaged in the conduct, and checks with people who were present and communication records as necessary. If the facts are confirmed, the company proceeds with consideration for the person harmed, measures against the person who engaged in the conduct, and prevention of recurrence. Even if the facts cannot be confirmed, the guidelines require measures to prevent recurrence.

If the selection process is still ongoing at the time of the consultation, care is also needed not to mix information from the investigation with the selection assessment. Limit who knows the content of the investigation, and record that the hiring decision was made according to the usual selection criteria. Note that what Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Act expressly prohibits is disadvantageous treatment of employees who cooperated in fact-finding. The company must not confuse the treatment of applicants in the selection process with the subject of this provision when explaining it.

The materials to review before the law takes effect are not limited to the work rules. Laying out the recruitment page, meeting invitations, the communication methods for employee visits and the internship participant materials side by side reveals the gap between the rules communicated to applicants and the procedures employees actually use. I think that closing that gap and then finalizing the information on the consultation desk and the response procedures for the people in charge is the preparation that fits this amendment.