BNP Paribas, low performance

【Judgement】 lawful dismissal

【Company】 BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Limited

【Category】 ordinary dismissal (low performance)

【Reference】Rodo Hanrei Journal 22-17

【Position/Salary】Director / JPY 24M

【Summary】

Under a performance-based personnel system, mid-career hires—who are expected to possess advanced job performance capabilities and deliver results—are typically subject to employment contracts that presuppose the existence of certain competencies and corresponding limitations in position and responsibilities, unlike new graduates hired under the premise of long-term employment. Given that the principle of avoiding dismissals (dismissal avoidance measures) is inherently not anticipated for the Plaintiff under these circumstances, if it is objectively recognized that the Plaintiff significantly lacks the expected high-level job performance capabilities or qualifications, and that improvement is deemed highly unlikely, then the dismissal falls under the grounds for termination stipulated in the work rules: "when work performance is significantly poor and unsuitable for employment."

Under the employment contract in question, the Plaintiff was objectively expected to possess the ability to secure high-value, tailor-made business deals requiring advanced expertise and promising high profitability. While the Plaintiff successfully closed large-scale new deals in the initial year of employment, they failed to secure any subsequent deals thereafter. Additionally, their performance evaluations remained consistently low for two consecutive years. Furthermore, given the numerous criticisms directed at the Plaintiff and their inadequate responses to such feedback, the dismissal grounds as stated above are deemed applicable.

Moreover, under this employment contract, the obligation to maintain employment through measures such as job reassignment (job transfer) is significantly diminished. The Defendant had already provided the Plaintiff with a final opportunity by creating a new position (last chance). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s past contributions in the flow business are not considered as mitigating factors (extenuating circumstances) to the extent of rendering the dismissal unjust, the dismissal cannot be deemed contrary to fairness. Consequently, the dismissal in this case cannot be regarded as lacking social appropriateness under prevailing societal norms.

* The plaintiff demanded a settlement payment of approximately  JPY 100-200 million in exchange for accepting the resignation during negotiations.