1. As most of you realize, the age discrimination aspect of our concern is only one part. (Notice again
the age discrimination in the proposed Early Retirement Incentive Proposal.) Some people feel that "being allowed to
stay" was our concern. It was/is not. Good teachers were always allowed to stay provided they abided by the October
1 notification date, and they were placed on regular (but one-year) contracts. If we continue to have good evaluations
from administrators, students/parents; then, why, based upon age, were we asked
to leave? And now, again based upon age, why do we revert back to and remain
at Step 5?
A much more fundamental concern is: what has happened to the process of change in personnel
policies the past few years. Until recently there has been a mutually agreed upon atmosphere in changes of policies and interpretations.
That has drastically changed, whereby the administration and board feel that they have the right to unilaterally
reinterpret long-standing policies and unilaterally make content changes in the policies. This is not legal
in Japan according to legal sources that we have contacted (See item 6.)
- It is a fundamental aspect of Japanese law that changes must be mutually worked out and agreed upon.
- Article 92 of the Civil Code further expands on this.
- The retirement policy was unilaterally reinterpreted, then the language was unilaterally changed, then the new language
was unilaterally ignored.
- This is not legal in Japan (if we were in America age-discrimination would not even be an issue).
This is our concern: ASIJ has seemingly changed from an institution concerned and supportive of its
faculty and staff to a bottom line financial institution that is more interested in buildings and material amenities than
for its people. There is much talk about communication and family and ASIJ culture/history, but the actions do not give
much meaning to these words.
The retirement policy that was established by the Board over 35 years ago
- worked well;
- it was something that people could depend on for retirement purposes;
- it was ahead of its time in retirement ages (when established Japanese retirement age was 55 and ASIJ set its retirement
age 5-years later or 60);
- and now the school is going illegally "backwards" in its changes and enforcements of policy.
At present, 56% of private middle schools and high schools in Tokyo already have a retirement
age of 65 with regular contracts.
2. ASIJ faculty who are union members have had meetings with other ASIJ
employees who belong to the other two union groups on campus. During these meetings member introductions occurred and common
issues of employment were discussed. Some of the janitors belong to the same union as we do and some accounting office ladies
and a secretary belong to one begun by some bus drivers.
3. We met with Noda-san (ASIJ's Assistant Director of Business
Affairs) on April 24 and the administration realizes that they are legally bound to have another meeting (danko)
with us. We asked them to set a date by April 30. On May 1 they notified Mr. Fukuyama, the union representative, that due
to Tim Thornton's absence and other matters they were not able to as of yet come up with a date, but they will soon. Mr. Fukuyama
will stay in touch with them.
4. Regarding ASIJ's legal responsibility to register personnel policies
in Mitaka Labor office:
- The administration's first response (Feb/March 2002) to the FSCC was that ASIJ did not have to file these policies.
- Now they say that the labor office did not accept non-Japanese language policies--which is true (this is Japan). The Administration
is now having the policies translated and will file them (sometime!)
This raises a major issue. When policies are filed (whether the policies are initial adoptions
or revisions) there must be a signature of a main party from both the employer and the employees signaling "agreement" on
these policies -- or at least commenting on disagreements. Seemingly the FSCC head would be the person to sign. But
since these were never filed, are any of them actually legal policies? Outside of the cost-containment measures, step level
for returning faculty, and retirement policy we probably, as faculty/staff, would not disagree with any policies, but how
will this now be interpreted by the Laws of Japan, the ASIJ faculty/staff and the administration? What if the faculty does
not agree to the administration's interpretations? What actions are the employees of the school prepared to take?
5.
We are taking steps to protect the legal rights employees are afforded by the Laws of Japan. We
are not trying to cause trouble, nor are we out to get anyone.
6. Some of the lawyers/boards/unions that members have met with or talked to:
-
Mr. Saito -- lawyer in Yotsuya
-
Mr. Yonekawa -- lawyer in Shimbashi
-
Mr. Marui -- lawyer in Kokubunji
- Labor Assistance Board in Tachikawa
- Mitaka City Office
- Tokyo Metropolitan Office
- Mitaka Labor Standards Inspection Office Mr. Tokuhashi
- Mr. Fukuyama from the Tokyo Shikyoren labor union
- Labor Administration Office in Mitaka
- Asahi Shimbun Law Consultation Office -- Mr. Shimomitsu (lawyer)
- Asahi Shimbun Law Consulttion Office -- Mr. Yokomaku (lawyer)
- Restructure section of Lawyers Group for laborers (Rouben)
- Tokyo Rengou Union
- Tokyo Chihyou Union
- Tokyo Roren Union
