April 27, 2005:  Our 10th arbitration meeting.  We have come to an agreement.  See Letter of Agreement on the sidebar

April 22, 2005:  Our 9th arbitration meeting (13th overall) was held in Shinjuku.  The Board's lawyers had to again leave early.  We hope that the Board/Admin finally realizes that contracts/policies are to be upheld and not unilaterally changed.  Grandfathering of changes was always standard operating procedure at ASIJ and hopefully it will again become that way.  Openness and transparency should be observed, not just talked about.  Next meeting is April 27.

April 2, 2005:  Another letter, (see sidebar) reiterating our concerns and the lack of sincere dialogue, sent to Headmaster, Board President and Personnel Committee Chair.

March 25, 2005:  Continued lack of progress in the March 25, 2005 arbitration meeting--our 8th. (Plus 4 dankos). The Union team has always hoped for some honest, open discussion and agreement on resolving the issues, but the Board team chooses to continue to stonewall and ignore the issues.  They say they want to settle this issue, but their actions do not seem to convey this message.  It does get rather annoying being treated in such a juvenile way.  Next meeting is scheduled for April 22, 2005.  Again, we will need to miss our classes and the school will need to pay our substitutes.

March 15, 2005:  Again no progress in the March 15, 2005 arbitration meeting--our 7th.  The Union team had hoped for some honest, open discussion and agreement on resolving the issues.  Although we feel any discussions should be open and transparent, it seems like we will have to agree to confidentiality for any movement to help resolve this issue.  Do they want to hide their behavior and actions?  Next meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2005.

February 16, 2005:  Another letter sent to the Board with a summary of the situation and proposals.

February 9, 2005:  Another arbitration meeting (the 6th) was held in Shinjuku with the usual result of the Board team stonewalling.   Continued non-addressing of our real concerns and issues.  Next meeting is scheduled for March 15.

January 13, 2005:  Another arbitration meeting is set for February 9 at 10:00.  This will be held in the Tokyo City Office Building in Shinjuku.

November 29, 2004:  Letter sent to the Board by the Union in response to their "reply" to our proposal.  This can be seen on the side bar.

November 18, 2004:  A Japanese copy of the newly adopted retirement proposal was faxed to the Union offices.  This, in no way, addresses the concerns of the union about (1) honoring personnel policies that we were hired under, (2) unilateral changing of policies, nor (3) the introduction of overt age discrimination into the personnel policies.

September 21, 2004:  Announcement of Board/Admin proposal to eliminate the non-regular contracts effective August 2004, but not retroactively to 2002 when non-regular contracts were implemented.  Mandatory retirment will now be at 65.  Although this is a step forward, it does NOT address our main concern about unilateral changes in our policies.  In fact, this new proposal was also unilaterally produced.

September 3, 2004:  A reminder sent to the Board that we are awaiting a reply to our May 27 proposal.

September 1, 2004:  Announced that Noda-san will be retiring in December.

August 26, 2004:  Fukuyama-san contacted Noda-san regarding the status of a reply to our May 27 proposal.

July 2, 2004: LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW BULLETIN (NO. 12)
*********************************************************
Mandatory Retirement System (July 2, 2004, Copyright reserved by Anderson Mori)
Most companies in Japan have a mandatory retirement system (Teinen). This
means that employees are deemed to automatically retire from their company regardless of their intention, performance, or ability to work when they reach a certain age. The company is entitled to designate the mandatory retirement age. The designated age, however, must be no less than 60 years old, according to the current Golden Age Employment Stability Act.  The Japanese Diet enacted some amendments to the Golden Age Employment Stability Act in June, 2004.
According to the amendments, companies are under an obligation to secure the employment of their employees up to the age indicated hereunder via (1) extension of their current mandatory retirement age, (2) continuation of employment even after their employees reach the mandatory retirement age, or (3) abolishment of their mandatory retirement system.
No less than 62 years old, during the period from April 1, 2006 to March 31,2007;
No less than 63 years old, during the period from April 1, 2007 to March 31,2010;
No less than 64 years old, during the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31,2013; and
No less than 65 years old, on or after April 1, 2013.

Should you wish to receive further information as to the above-mentioned, and/or wish to consult as to whether your company is in compliance with labor/employment law, please contact Hideki Thurgood Kano (e-mail: <mailto:hidekithurgood.kano@andersonmori.com>hidekithurgood.kano@andersonmori.com, tel: 81-3-6888-1061).

June 10, 2004:  Noda-san contacted Fukuyama-san that the Board will not have time to discuss the proposal until late summer.  Let it be noted that in the May 17 Arbitration meeting, the admin team stated that any proposal would need to be taken to the Board, since they did not have the power to authorize changes in policy.   We said a written proposal would be coming soon.  There was a scheduled Board Meeting on June 1, but evidently this does not have much priority to be discussed--in spite of all the words to the contrary.

May 27, 2004:  Proposal (see separate page)  presented to the Board.

May 17, 2004--5th Arbitration meeting--the Board team left the planned 3-hour meeting after 40 minutes saying they could not discuss anything without it being in written form. They asked us to name the six administrators -- we assured the administrators of confidentiality, but the six are of only nine still living!  We did say they included past Headmasters, HS principals, MS principal, ES principal and Directors of Business Affairs.  They also said there were some discrepencies in our listing of the non-extended teachers.  We are not aware of any errors on this point.  These facts have been posted and presented for nearly two years and nothing has been said by the Board's representatives until this meeting .  Would this be a delay tactic?  We never claimed the names were perfect, but certainly we have shared all of our information.  How about the same from the Board side?  Especially in this time of desiring to move forward in "good faith".  No new arbitration date was set.

May 3, 2004:  Town meeting [Tim Carr, Doug Wallingford, Karen Thomas] held in the R.T. to discuss the plan to take a look at the entire set of personnel polices.  This will take 12-18 months.  It seems like they do not intend to address current policy issues such as ours, but continue to wish to delay and stonewall our situation.  And yet they talk about "good faith".  [See February 6 note below]. There is supposed to be a faculty provided set of minutes on the FASST website--sometime. 

April 20, 2004: Our 4th arbitration meeting was held April 20 in Shinjuku.  In answer to questions concerning the number of people in the past who had not been granted waivers after reaching 60, the Admin team stated that 13 people over the past 10 years had not been extended.   

They also stated that the 6 people contesting this policy are the same six listed as examples of past practice of not being rehired at 60 and those same six are included in the 13 total who have not been extended in the past 10 years.

They also do not dispute that most of those not extended were well beyond 60 years old even to 67 and 69--and they had often been extended many years.  Three people were even hired after 60. 

They also agreed that there has been no past practice of a person not being extended with a regular contract solely because they were 60.

In discussing issues concerning co-curricular assignments and the length of the teaching day listed on the Non-Regular Contract, the Admin were made aware that we do not all teach only 5 of 8 classes (HS, MS, ES, and ELC are all different) and therefore do not have lots of time to meet with students during school rather than after school, that PE teachers MUST coach two sports and that teachers do not ultimately have free choice on co-curricular activities.  This was pointed out since the Non-Regular contract "allows" a teacher to leave at 3:15.

It was also clearly pointed out that when the Union talks about the "old" retirement policy, we always mean the 1964-2001 policy under which we were all hired and signed numerous contracts.  The Admin team refers to the "old" policy as the 2002 step 5 upon rehiring policy.

In the four danko's and 4 arbitration meetings the admin team has variously been headed by Tim Thornton, Tim Ilse, the lawyers and this time it was Noda-san.  Never a Board President nor Headmaster who is in charge.  It is very difficult to have dialogue with so many different heads.  Our representative, Mr. Fukuyama, has always been our spokesperson. 

Next arbitration date is May 17 from 9-12 at Shinjuku.

 

February 6, 2004:  In a letter from Karen Thomas, Chair of the Board, she states they "will most likely continue discussions to determine what we think are the best overall policies for the school regardless of the arbitration."

February 2, 2004:  A 2nd arbitration meeting (of nearly 5 hours) was held.  The Board team continues to stonewall by not answering our questions, saying they don't understand our questions, and don't know what our concerns are.  Next meeting cannot be held by the Board team until March 8 at 2:00---meaning we have to miss school and have substitutes.

January 13, 2004:  Another letter sent to the Board again requesting serious and honest discussion of this issue.  55 signatures have been gathered so far (49 on the letter sent). SEE SIDE BAR FOR THE LETTER

December 4, 2003:  1st Arbitration meeting held at the Tokyo Labor Relations Office in Shinjuku.  Another example of an insincere and even rude behavior on the part of the Board team to waste our time (and needed substitutes for our classes) by continuing to delay any action to resolve this situation. They had to cut short the meeting because their lawyers had to leave.  Can they not meet without the lawyers?   We waited 2 months for this?  The next arbitration meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2004--because they are so busy until then.

November 26, 2003:  Meeting of all union members with Tim Carr to present our thoughts on the situation and express our frustrations at the insincere treatment this issue has had. 

October 29, 2003:  Email reply (to our September 25 letter) received from Lee Daniels, saying all of our questions were answered in the May meeting.  A totally false statement since only about 5 of the 19 questions were even addressed.

October 25, 2003:  Arbitration meeting has been set for December 4.

October 14, 2003:  Town Meeting in the RT where Lee Daniels stated that the Board wants to have dialogue, communication, openess, and transparency on all issues.

October 9, 2003:  Noda-san was contacted by the Tokyo Labor Relations Board to come to their Shinjuku office to receive the filing papers.  She told them she was very busy and would pick them up on October 17.

October 8, 2003:  Papers filed with the Tokyo Labor Relations Board for arbitration.

September 25, 2003:  Another request sent to Mr. Daniels for answers to our questions of May.  (Questions remained mainly unanswered at that meeting).

July 23, 2003:  Decision to go to arbitration.

June 6, 2003:  Letter written to the Board by the Union [See side bar]

May 21, 2003:  Lee Daniels and Stan Beesley come to school to explain the Board's position.  They stated that the "10.5 policy" is final and made it clear that it will not be changed next year under Tim Carr.  Naturally the Union rejects this and will go to arbitration.  Mr. Daniels did admit that the interpretation of the policy had changed.

May 19, 2003:  Board representatives notify the union that they will not be willing to attend another danko this school year.

April 30, 2003:  Board acceptance of Ad Hoc committee made known by Peter Cooper--The Union does not agree with this proposal.

Finally, the Board approved the recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee to enhance the financial package for staff on Non-Regular Contracts. The Ad Hoc proposal attempts to bring the total cost of a non-regular contract over a five-year period in line with what it costs the school to bring in a new teacher. Specific elements of the proposal include:

 

1. Placing teachers with a non-regular contract at step 10.5 and keeping them there until age 65 if they choose to remain at the school until that time.

2. Setting the school's retirement contribution at 11%. [This includes the teacher's 5.27%]

3. Keeping teachers in their current salary "lane" according to their educational background and allowing them to advance to a higher lane if they earn appropriate credit.

4. Making any changes retroactive to the 2002-2003 school year.

5. Reducing working hours and attendance at professional growth days.

April 23, 2003:  Request to the Board for another Danko

March 7, 2003:  Ad Hoc committee is recommending their proposal to the Board.  This sets a non-regular contract fixed at a newly created step 10.5 (there are 19 steps).  Feedback concerning this policy highlighted the main issues of age-discrimination, illegality and evaluation.

March 3, 2003:  Request by FSCC for faculty to select them as representatives to sign off on the Personnel Policies to be submitted to Mitaka Labor Office.

March 3, 2003:  Report from Ad Hoc with feedback on new proposal.  Although large majority of feedback is negative, they recommend for the Board to accept it.

February 27, 2003:  4th Danko was held at the TEMPLE  (see sidebar for the minutes).

February 14, 2003:  At a 3:45 meeting the Ad Hoc committee presented the "new" proposal--which never addressed any of our concerns.

January 27, 2003:  Reply to our questions of December 15 was received.  Very limited and negative responses.  (See sidebar)

December 11, 2002:  At the request of Tim Thornton, a meeting was held with Fukuyama-san.  Nothing new.

December 10, 2002:  Tim Carr selected as new headmaster.

November 12, 2002: 3rd Danko meeting was held at the nearby TEMPLE (see sidebar for summary)

October 16, 2002:  Noda-san notified Fukuyama-san that a 3rd Danko meeting could be held the week of November 11.

September 26, 2002:  2nd Danko meeting at the nearby TEMPLE  (see sidebar for summary)

September 24, 2002:  Meeting with Mr. Saito, lawyer from Tokyo Chuo Law Offices

September 16, 2002:  Town Meeting in HS regarding more Personnel Policy changes proposed by the Administration.  Web site developed by FSCC on intranet for feedback.

September 5, 2002:  We were notified that the change to step D5 as maximum was "announced" to the faculty through placing it in the Personnel files on the web site.

September 3, 2002:  John O'Leary, Marguerite Arnote, Ann Burkhardt, and Jacqui Tolin join the union.

August 23, 2002:  Peter Cooper announced this will be his last year at ASIJ

June 3/4, 2002 Mid Squier and Matsumoto-sensei were given a paper to sign as an understanding and agreeing with the "non-regular employment contract".  Must be signed by the 7th or else they will not receive a contract for next year.  No "non-regular employment contract" was attached!

May 29, 2002    1st Danko Meeting at the nearby SHRINE (see sidebar for a summary)

May 28, 2002   We were notified today that the meeting tomorrow will be held at the Shrine across from school next to the park.

May 23, 2002  We met with 3 members from the union to plan our danko meeting on the 29th

May 8, 2002   Today, the people who signed the letter to the board (On March 26) each received a two page reply from Mr. Beesley on behalf of the Board. Although very polite in tone, it mainly re-iterated the financial, renewal, and evaluation issues stated before.  We have no quarrels with these issues.  "Unfortunately, we are not able to arrive at a retirement policy that is satisfactory to everyone."  But there was no addressing the legal issues, which is our concern.

Also, today our union representative, Mr. Fukuyama, was notified by Noda-san that they would be willing to meet with us on either May 29 or May 30 for our official danko meeting.  Since the HS Sports banquet is on the 30th, the 29th would be better.