Shortened Working Hours for Caregivers — Japan

In Japan, shortened working hours for caregivers (介護のための所定労働時間の短縮等の措置) are governed principally by the Act on Childcare Leave, Caregiver Leave, and Other Measures for the Welfare of Workers Caring for Children or Other Family Members (育児・介護休業法).

As of 30 September 2026, the framework includes the amendments that took effect on 1 April 2025, including stronger individual notice/intent-confirmation duties and employer measures designed to prevent employees from leaving employment because of caregiving.

1. Statutory basis

The principal provision is Article 23(3) of the Act.

Where an employee is caring for a subject family member in a state requiring constant care (要介護状態) and is not taking caregiver leave, the employer must provide measures enabling the employee to continue working while providing care. The measures must cover a continuous period of at least three years from the employee's requested starting date.

Importantly, the employer does not necessarily have to provide only a conventional reduced-hours arrangement. The law permits several forms of accommodation.

2. What the employer must provide

Under the MHLW framework, an employer must establish at least one of the following types of measures:

1. Shortened working hours
   • reduction of daily scheduled hours;
   • reduction of weekly or monthly scheduled hours;
   • reduction of scheduled working days; or
   • allowing the employee to designate particular days or hours when they will not work.
2. Flexible working hours / flextime
3. Staggered starting or finishing times
4. Assistance with caregiving-service costs
5. Other equivalent measures.

The employer must make the system available for at least three years and at least two occasions of use for each subject family member.

Thus, Japanese law is better understood as requiring a work–care accommodation system, rather than automatically giving every caregiver an absolute right to work a particular number of hours.

3. Who qualifies?

The system covers employees caring for a qualifying family member, including:

• spouse, including a de facto spouse;
• parents;
• children;
• grandparents;
• siblings;
• grandchildren; and
• parents of the spouse.

The family member must satisfy the statutory 要介護状態 standard. The MHLW describes this generally as a condition arising from injury, illness, or physical/mental disability requiring continuous care for a period of two weeks or more.

Employees who are daily-hire workers are excluded.

An employer may exclude certain employees through a properly concluded labour-management agreement, particularly employees with less than one year of continuous employment and employees working two or fewer scheduled days per week, subject to the statutory conditions.

4. The three-year requirement

A particularly important compliance point is that the employer's system must operate for three continuous years or longer, calculated from the employee's requested commencement date.

This does not mean that the employee is required to work reduced hours continuously for three years.

Rather, the employer must maintain an available statutory accommodation framework over that period, with the employee entitled to use it in accordance with the applicable system.

The employer should therefore avoid drafting a policy such as:

"Reduced hours may be granted for a maximum of six months."

A six-month cap may conflict with the statutory requirement where it prevents the employee from accessing the legally required accommodation framework during the protected three-year period.

5. Relationship with caregiver leave

Caregiver leave (介護休業) and shortened working hours/flexible working measures serve different purposes.

Caregiver leave is intended principally to enable the employee to establish or reorganize a caregiving structure. The shortened-hours system is designed to allow the employee to continue working while dealing with recurring caregiving needs.

MHLW specifically distinguishes the functions of:

• caregiver leave;
• caregiver leave days;
• reduced working hours and other flexible-work measures; and
• restrictions on overtime, non-statutory overtime and night work. 

An HR policy should therefore not tell an employee:

"You have already used caregiver leave, so you cannot use reduced working hours."

Those are separate statutory mechanisms.

6. Employer's 2025 compliance duties

The 2025 amendments substantially strengthened the employer's preventive obligations.

A. Individual notice and intention confirmation

When an employee informs the employer that they are facing caregiving responsibilities, the employer must individually:

• explain the caregiver-leave and work–care support systems;
• explain the application/contact procedure; and
• provide information concerning caregiver-leave benefits where applicable;

and must confirm the employee's intention regarding use of the relevant systems.

The employer cannot conduct this process in a manner designed to discourage the employee from using the statutory system.

B. Early information around age 40

Employers must also provide information about caregiver leave and work–care support systems at an early stage, through a specified period around the employee reaching age 40.

The information includes the relevant systems, application/contact point and caregiver-leave benefits.

C. Workplace-environment measures

Employers must take measures to make use of caregiver-support systems easier, such as:

• training;
• establishing a consultation system;
• collecting and providing examples of employees' use of the systems; or
• another prescribed measure.

These obligations have applied since 1 April 2025.

D. Telework

For employees caring for a family member requiring care, employers also have a statutory effort obligation concerning telework as an additional means of facilitating continued employment.

7. Protection against adverse treatment

Article 23-2 is particularly important.

An employer may not dismiss or otherwise disadvantage an employee because the employee made a request for, or received, the statutory reduced-hours/caregiving accommodation.

Potentially problematic measures include:

• dismissal;
• forced resignation;
• demotion;
• unjustified reduction in salary;
• adverse transfer;
• exclusion from promotion;
• discriminatory performance evaluation;
• reduction of benefits;
• undesirable reassignment;
• retaliation after requesting reduced hours; or
• treating caregiving accommodation as evidence of poor commitment.

The precise legality depends on causation and the employer's legitimate reasons, but the employer should maintain objective evidence showing that an adverse employment decision was not a disguised response to caregiving accommodation.

8. Pay during shortened working hours

Japanese law does not generally require an employer to pay the employee the same salary for hours that the employee does not work.

Therefore, if an employee's working day is lawfully reduced from eight hours to six hours, a corresponding adjustment to remuneration for the reduced working time may generally be possible.

However, there is an important distinction between:

legitimate pro-rata treatment for hours not worked

and

an additional penalty imposed because the employee used the caregiving/family-support system.

The second category creates a much greater legal risk.

For example:

• 8 hours → 6 hours;
• salary corresponding to 6 hours → potentially permissible;
• additional loss of promotion solely because the employee used the statutory system → potentially prohibited.

Japanese case law concerning childcare short-time work is particularly important by analogy on this point.

9. Six important case laws

Important qualification: reported Japanese litigation specifically concerning Article 23 caregiver shortened-hours arrangements is considerably less developed than the case law concerning childcare short-time work. Accordingly, the cases below include both directly relevant work–family cases and closely analogous childcare cases interpreting the same statutory protection against adverse treatment. They should not be described as six cases all deciding caregiver-shortened-hours claims.

Case 1 — Japan Schelling Co. Ltd. case

Supreme Court, 14 December 1988

This is an important foundational authority concerning statutory family-protection rights and adverse treatment.

The Supreme Court examined whether an employer's treatment that effectively penalized an employee for exercising a legally protected leave entitlement could undermine the purpose of the statutory protection.

Principle relevant to caregiver short-time work:

An employer should not structure employment conditions in a way that effectively discourages employees from exercising statutory family-related rights.

This principle is particularly relevant where an employer formally offers reduced working hours but attaches sufficiently severe financial or career consequences that employees are effectively deterred from using them.

Case 2 — Numazu Kotsu case

Supreme Court, 25 June 1993

The Supreme Court considered the relationship between statutory employment protections and employer treatment that could discourage employees from exercising protected rights.

The case is frequently cited in Japanese labour-law analysis concerning the threshold at which an adverse employment measure becomes legally problematic because it undermines the statutory purpose.

Relevance:

When evaluating a caregiver short-hours policy, HR should examine not merely whether the policy technically exists, but whether its actual operation substantially undermines the employee's ability or willingness to use the statutory protection.

This reasoning has subsequently appeared in litigation concerning childcare and family-care rights. A later Tokyo District Court decision expressly referred to the Japan Schelling and Numazu Kotsu principles when considering disadvantageous treatment connected with family-related leave.

Case 3 — K Company / Konami Digital Entertainment case

Tokyo District Court, 17 March 2011

This case concerned an employee returning from maternity/childcare leave and seeking childcare short-time work.

The employer changed the employee's duties and reduced her role grade and remuneration. The court examined whether the measures constituted prohibited disadvantageous treatment.

The case is important because it recognizes that the analysis must distinguish:

• an objectively justified personnel decision; from
• a measure actually caused by the employee's exercise of a protected family-work right.

The court also examined the relationship between short-time work and discretionary working arrangements, recognizing that a reduced-hours employee cannot simply be treated as though they had worked a full discretionary schedule.

Caregiver relevance: an employer implementing caregiver short-time work should redesign workload and working-time arrangements consistently with the reduced schedule rather than merely reducing contractual hours while expecting the same full-time workload.

Case 4 — National Association for Persons with Severe Motor and Intellectual Disabilities case

Tokyo District Court, 2 October 2015

This is one of the most useful authorities for short-time-work compliance.

Employees used childcare short-time work, reducing their working day from eight hours to six hours. The employer reduced their basic pay proportionately but also applied an additional formula that suppressed their salary progression.

The Tokyo District Court held that the additional suppression constituted prohibited disadvantageous treatment under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act.

Principle:

An employer can distinguish compensation based on actual working time, but it should not impose an additional career/pay penalty merely because the employee used the statutory short-time system.

This is highly relevant when designing caregiver reduced-hours policies.

Case 5 — Japan Business Lab case

Tokyo District Court, 11 September 2018

The case concerned disadvantageous treatment associated with childcare short-time working arrangements.

The litigation examined changes to employment conditions and the application of the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act's prohibition against disadvantageous treatment. The case is reported specifically as a case concerning disadvantageous treatment based on use of statutory short-time working measures.

Principle for employers:

Where an employment disadvantage follows an employee's use of a protected short-time arrangement, the employer should be able to demonstrate a legitimate, independently supported reason for the decision.

A vague explanation such as:

"Employees using reduced hours are less committed"

would present significant legal risk.

Case 6 — I Shōji case

Tokyo District Court, 13 March 2015

This case concerned an employee's return following maternity/childcare leave and the employer's failure to appropriately facilitate the employee's return to work.

The court considered the employer's responsibilities under the Childcare and Family Care Leave Act and found the employer's conduct surrounding the employee's return problematic. The case also involved an alleged violation of the statutory protection against disadvantageous treatment.

Relevance to caregivers:

The employer's obligation is not exhausted by having a written policy.

The employer should also operate the policy in a way that allows the employee to actually continue employment.

For caregiver short-time work, this means:

• responding promptly to the request;
• explaining available options;
• arranging workable schedules;
• coordinating with the employee's manager;
• documenting decisions; and
• avoiding conduct that effectively forces resignation.

10. What these cases collectively establish

The case law suggests several practical principles.

11. HR compliance checklist

A Japanese employer should ideally have the following controls.

A. Policy

The work rules should clearly specify:

• eligibility;
• qualifying family members;
• definition of care-needing condition;
• application procedure;
• required documents;
• commencement date;
• available working-hour options;
• duration;
• frequency;
• salary treatment;
• social-insurance implications;
• interaction with caregiver leave;
• interaction with overtime restrictions;
• interaction with night-work restrictions;
• return to normal working hours; and
• appeal/consultation mechanism.

B. Individual application

When an employee requests the arrangement:

1. confirm eligibility;
2. explain all available options;
3. confirm the employee's preferred arrangement;
4. document the decision;
5. coordinate with the manager;
6. determine a workable workload;
7. update the work schedule;
8. adjust payroll;
9. monitor implementation; and
10. review whether the arrangement remains effective.

C. Management training

Managers should be specifically instructed not to say things such as:

• "If you reduce your hours, you cannot have a promotion."
• "People who use caregiver leave aren't suitable for management."
• "You should resign if you cannot work full time."
• "The team cannot accommodate you."
• "Use your annual leave instead."
• "Your evaluation will automatically be reduced."

The problem is not merely the words themselves. Such statements can become evidence of a causal connection between the employee's protected family-care request and subsequent adverse treatment.

12. Interaction with working-time legislation

Shortened working hours do not eliminate the employer's obligations under the Labour Standards Act.

If an employee has a six-hour scheduled day, the employer should not routinely require the employee to work beyond that schedule and then characterize the additional work as informal assistance.

The employer must separately consider:

• statutory working hours;
• contractual working hours;
• overtime;
• rest periods;
• holiday work;
• night work;
• 36 Agreement requirements;
• overtime records; and
• wage payment.

The reduced-hours arrangement should therefore be reflected accurately in the timekeeping and payroll systems.

13. Documentation is critical

For each request, the employer should maintain:

Employee request → eligibility assessment → information provided → employee preference → employer decision → schedule → payroll treatment → workload allocation → manager instructions → review.

This creates an audit trail demonstrating that the decision was based on the statutory framework rather than on an intention to disadvantage a caregiver.

14. Practical example

Suppose an employee normally works:

9:00–18:00, five days per week

and becomes responsible for caring for an elderly parent.

The employee requests:

9:00–16:00, five days per week.

The employer should assess the request under the statutory caregiver accommodation system.

It could provide:

• a seven-hour working day;
• six-hour working days;
• staggered hours;
• flextime; or
• another legally permissible measure.

The employee's salary may be adjusted to reflect legitimately reduced working time, but the employer should not automatically reduce the employee's grade, cancel promotion eligibility, or give a punitive performance rating merely because the statutory arrangement is being used.

The manager should also modify the employee's workload so that a six-hour employee is not expected to produce the output of an eight-hour employee merely because deadlines remain unchanged.

15. Key distinction: childcare vs caregiving

Do not confuse the two systems.

Childcare short-time work has its own statutory requirements, including the rules applicable to employees caring for young children.

Caregiver short-time work under Article 23(3) concerns an employee caring for a family member in a statutory state requiring care.

For caregivers, the employer's central obligation is to establish one or more legally compliant mechanisms that enable the employee to continue working while providing care.

The 2025 reforms additionally make individual notice/intent confirmation, early information provision and workplace-environment measures central parts of compliance.

Conclusion

For Japanese employers, compliance with shortened working hours for caregivers requires more than simply inserting a "reduced working hours" clause into the work rules. The employer must maintain a qualifying three-year work–care accommodation framework, provide an appropriate statutory option, properly process individual requests, avoid retaliation or disadvantageous treatment, maintain accurate working-time/pay records, and comply with the enhanced 2025 individual-notice, intention-confirmation and workplace-environment obligations.

The most important case-law lesson from the closely related short-time-work cases is that a lawful reduction in pay corresponding to genuinely reduced working time should be distinguished from an additional penalty imposed because the employee exercised a protected family-care/work-life-balance right.